To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Physics Of 9/11 Events - Part 3
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116

Grumpy
11th May 2007 - 12:19 AM
user posted image

http://i.pbase.com/t5/24/704224/4/67425045.IT2sxWd1.jpg

Paper in the supposedly "molten steel" of this...

user posted image

http://i.pbase.com/t5/24/704224/4/67425040.iw01MoHZ.jpg



user posted image

http://i.pbase.com/t5/24/704224/4/67425039.AV4v7ItT.jpg

At least three floors compressed together, not melted. This "meteorite" is typical of the rubble found in the subbasements and is what the majority of the contents of those buildings ended up as.

Grumpy cool.gif
memeticverb
11th May 2007 - 12:41 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 11 2007, 12:07 AM)
User posted image

http://concretecore.741.com/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg

Nope, no concrete core, unless that concrete is invisible concrete. No diagonal bracing, no rebar, no concrete. Three strikes you're out!!!

Ah I see, this is incorrect. Its assumed that the steel was not encased in concrete, per individual column, but rather the columns themselves were contained within a sealed concrete structure. Thanks for pointing this out. What else could the 911 Commission Report mean by saying that the towers were supported by a hollow shaft?
David B. Benson
11th May 2007 - 12:44 AM
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 11 2007, 12:41 AM)
What else could the 911 Commission Report mean by saying that the towers were supported by a hollow shaft?

It means the report was written by a bunch of politicians...
memeticverb
11th May 2007 - 12:46 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 11 2007, 12:19 AM)
user posted image

http://i.pbase.com/t5/24/704224/4/67425045.IT2sxWd1.jpg

Paper in the supposedly "molten steel" of this...

user posted image

http://i.pbase.com/t5/24/704224/4/67425040.iw01MoHZ.jpg



user posted image

http://i.pbase.com/t5/24/704224/4/67425039.AV4v7ItT.jpg

At least three floors compressed together, not melted. This "meteorite" is typical of the rubble found in the subbasements and is what the majority of the contents of those buildings ended up as.

Grumpy cool.gif

Here is an official, I think a scientist if i remember correctly, saying that indeed there is "one single element" found with in this sample composed of all the obvious materials we see on the surface.

Previously Molten ??
Grumpy
11th May 2007 - 02:07 AM
memeticverb

The ONLY thing encasing the core columns was a couple of layers of gypsum board for fire insulation. Again, the only concrete in the cores was in the floors. And the only rebar or cross bracing was in the mechanical floors. NO CONCRETE REINFORCED CORE, just core beams stabilized by the floor trusses(except for mechanical floors. Nothing seperated the elevator shafts except gypsum board.

QUOTE
Here is an official, I think a scientist if i remember correctly, saying that indeed there is "one single element" found with in this sample composed of all the obvious materials we see on the surface.


And what the heck does that mean??? I showed you closeups of paper and carpet in that compressed rubble. If ANY PART of that rubble had been at the temp of molten steel they could not have survived(2500 F vs. 450 F ignition temp of paper) ergo NO MOLTEN STEEL, PERIOD. Just parts of at least three floors crushed into a "rock" as it pancaked into the basement.

In the entire WTC complex not one shred of evidence that ANY steel melted, NOT ONE.

Grumpy cool.gif
memeticverb
11th May 2007 - 04:01 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 11 2007, 02:07 AM)
memeticverb

The ONLY thing encasing the core columns was a couple of layers of gypsum board for fire insulation. Again, the only concrete in the cores was in the floors. And the only rebar or cross bracing was in the mechanical floors. NO CONCRETE REINFORCED CORE, just core beams stabilized by the floor trusses(except for mechanical floors. Nothing seperated the elevator shafts except gypsum board.



And what the heck does that mean??? I showed you closeups of paper and carpet in that compressed rubble. If ANY PART of that rubble had been at the temp of molten steel they could not have survived(2500 F vs. 450 F ignition temp of paper) ergo NO MOLTEN STEEL, PERIOD. Just parts of at least three floors crushed into a "rock" as it pancaked into the basement.

In the entire WTC complex not one shred of evidence that ANY steel melted, NOT ONE.

Grumpy cool.gif

No I think you are wrong here. In fact the opposite would seem true.

If fire were responsible for heating those compacted 3 floors of material into about 10 cubic feet of space, then we would not expect paper shreds to survive.

This seems only possible if explosions were shredding the material, in high pressure bursts or compact charges. In controlled demolitions, explosives do not burn everything in the building but simply cut the columns and jettison the debris, consisting of steel and concrete dust. And, in the case of the WTC. apparently many of them were doing this. Does anyone know if there have been any traces of steel dust found in the volumes and volumes of dust from the trade center?
cerberus
11th May 2007 - 04:15 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2007, 01:50 PM)
Well if you got it from 1-3 then you should have read FURTHER.

See Table 6-2 and Fig 6-29a and Fig 6-29B. on pg 86 because it will show you the ONLY core columns that were recovered from the fire areas. 

ONLY TWO OF WHICH had sufficient paint for the analysis.

Hmmm. Interesting. So your claim is that it was only the core columns that failed due to fire? That's of course not what the NIST report claims. Have you notified NIST of their error?

QUOTE

As for the REST of your arguments, they are in fact covered in 1-5 so simply tell us WHAT PART of the NIST FIRE DYANMICS ANALYSIS you disagree with and why.


No, they aren't. NIST provides no real evidence, at all, that the steel reached temperatures hot enough to weaken it (per Corus Construction, structural steel doesn't even begin to weaken until it reaches 350 C), much less caused it to fail. A computer simulation based on wildly exaggerated input assumptions that have no evidentiary basis for support doesn't cut it.

As far as what I disagree with and why, NIST's conclusions regarding steel temperatures are in direct conflict with their own physical tests of the steel samples, which were, in their own words, selected specifically from the impact and fire zones. They are also in conflict with all of their own workstation and floor model tests, as well as being in conflict with Corus Construction's tests of the performance of unfireproofed steel under intense fire conditions, which were found to reach temperatures no hotter than 360 C across many tests. All of these lines of evidence are also consistent with a thermodynamic analysis of the WTC fires, using NIST's own assumption of 4,500 gallons of jet fuel available to feed the fires on the impact and failure floors and the known fire load for the furnishings on several floors in the vicinity of the failure zones.

What evidence do you have aside from NIST's bogus computer simulation that any of the steel reached temperatures hot enough to weaken it, much less cause it to fail?

<chirping crickets>

As you know, NIST's entire conclusion rests on their theory that the fireproofing was widely dislodged. They have estimated, as have all other engineers that have studied the event, that the damage caused by the impact of the planes was minimal. According to NIST, loads were only redistributed as a result of the impact from -20% to +25%. Also according to NIST, had the fireproofing not been dislodged, the building would not have collapsed.

The fireproofing issue is one big red herring, however. Not only did the short-lived (45 minute) fires in the WTC complex not cause the steel to reach temperatures hot enough to weaken it, high rise buildings in the past have burned intensely for up to 17 hours over multiple floors, long past the point when their fireproofing was in affect (2 hours), and not collapsed. Buildings that are still standing and in use today.

I'll get to your recent post about the fireproofing as time permits. You are in serious error on a number of points.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

As for the REST of your arguments, they are in fact covered in 1-5 so simply tell us WHAT PART of the NIST FIRE DYANMICS ANALYSIS you disagree with and why.


No, they aren't. NIST provides no real evidence, at all, that the steel reached temperatures hot enough to weaken it (per Corus Construction, structural steel doesn't even begin to weaken until it reaches 350 C), much less caused it to fail. A computer simulation based on wildly exaggerated input assumptions that have no evidentiary basis for support doesn't cut it.

As far as what I disagree with and why, NIST's conclusions regarding steel temperatures are in direct conflict with their own physical tests of the steel samples, which were, in their own words, selected specifically from the impact and fire zones. They are also in conflict with all of their own workstation and floor model tests, as well as being in conflict with Corus Construction's tests of the performance of unfireproofed steel under intense fire conditions, which were found to reach temperatures no hotter than 360 C across many tests. All of these lines of evidence are also consistent with a thermodynamic analysis of the WTC fires, using NIST's own assumption of 4,500 gallons of jet fuel available to feed the fires on the impact and failure floors and the known fire load for the furnishings on several floors in the vicinity of the failure zones.

What evidence do you have aside from NIST's bogus computer simulation that any of the steel reached temperatures hot enough to weaken it, much less cause it to fail?

<chirping crickets>

As you know, NIST's entire conclusion rests on their theory that the fireproofing was widely dislodged. They have estimated, as have all other engineers that have studied the event, that the damage caused by the impact of the planes was minimal. According to NIST, loads were only redistributed as a result of the impact from -20% to +25%. Also according to NIST, had the fireproofing not been dislodged, the building would not have collapsed.

The fireproofing issue is one big red herring, however. Not only did the short-lived (45 minute) fires in the WTC complex not cause the steel to reach temperatures hot enough to weaken it, high rise buildings in the past have burned intensely for up to 17 hours over multiple floors, long past the point when their fireproofing was in affect (2 hours), and not collapsed. Buildings that are still standing and in use today.

I'll get to your recent post about the fireproofing as time permits. You are in serious error on a number of points.


These STRAWMAN arguements are POINTLESS.


Sorry, but multiple lines of evidence that the steel did not reach temperatures hot enough to weaken it much less cause it to fail does not constitute a strawman argument.

You need to spend some time studying this web page:

Fallacy: Straw Man
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
cerberus
11th May 2007 - 04:55 AM
QUOTE (Capracus+May 10 2007, 11:23 AM)
The models were 1/4 - 1/2 the length of the real floor systems and the results may not scale.


This is false. From your own source:

"The first two tests, conducted in early August 2004 at the UL facility in Toronto, Canada, looked at the fire performance of 11-meter (35-foot) floor systems coated with a near-uniform 19-millimeter-thick (0.75-inch) layer of fireproofing material. This is representative of the span size and as-applied average fireproofing thickness of the floor systems in the WTC towers."

QUOTE

Your figure of 96,000,000 kg or 106,000 tons for steel in each tower is correct, but you figure of 48,000,000 kg or 53,000 tons of concrete per tower is way off. There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the towers.  Blah, blah, blah.


Your calculations are false. The 425,000 figure includes all concrete poured for the complex, including roads, driveways, parking garage, etc.

This entire line of debate is also irrelevant as NIST's tests of the floor truss assemblies were based on "twice the floor load that was on the WTC floors."

Two hour tests (vs. the actual 45 minute WTC fires) involving temperatures much more extreme than were known to have existed at WTC, that were found "capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

Despite two hours in a high temperature furnace, the deck of the floor model sagged about 3 inches in the middle and the major joist parts did not sag at all. Somehow, this 3 inches gets magically transformed by NIST in their bogus computer simulation without any supporting evidence at all into a dramatic 42 inch sagging and joists getting bent down severely.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Your figure of 96,000,000 kg or 106,000 tons for steel in each tower is correct, but you figure of 48,000,000 kg or 53,000 tons of concrete per tower is way off. There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the towers.  Blah, blah, blah.


Your calculations are false. The 425,000 figure includes all concrete poured for the complex, including roads, driveways, parking garage, etc.

This entire line of debate is also irrelevant as NIST's tests of the floor truss assemblies were based on "twice the floor load that was on the WTC floors."

Two hour tests (vs. the actual 45 minute WTC fires) involving temperatures much more extreme than were known to have existed at WTC, that were found "capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

Despite two hours in a high temperature furnace, the deck of the floor model sagged about 3 inches in the middle and the major joist parts did not sag at all. Somehow, this 3 inches gets magically transformed by NIST in their bogus computer simulation without any supporting evidence at all into a dramatic 42 inch sagging and joists getting bent down severely.


Additionally, the floor systems in the impact zones more than likely were stripped of their SFRM, which drastically reduces their fire rating.


No, this isn't likely at all, as I will show in my reply to arthurs on this particular topic.
cerberus
11th May 2007 - 05:06 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 11 2007, 02:07 AM)
In the entire WTC complex not one shred of evidence that ANY steel melted, NOT ONE.

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel is still running."

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, 10/2001, reporting on a speech given at the Structural Engineers Associations 9th Annual Conference by Leslie Robertson, Lead Structural Engineer for WTC.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

----------

"But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris."

Waste Age, 4/1/2001.
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

----------

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel."

Government Computer News, 9/11/2002.
http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news

----------

"It was dripping from the molten steel."

Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, Bronx Firefighter and WTC recovery worker, Philadelphia Inquirer/Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002, describing a steel beam being lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero.

----------

"When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

"It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metaltrapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat."

Herb Trimpe, Ground Zero Chaplain, Times Herald Record.
http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm

----------

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

Alison Geyh, Ph.D., Team Lead for WTC Environmental Impact Study, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, Fall 2001.
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

----------

"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster."

Ron Burger, public health advisor for the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html

----------

"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

Guy Lounsbury, New York Air National Guard, "Serving on 'sacred ground'", National Guard, 12/2001.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa37...112/ai_n9015802

----------

"…or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."

William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center, 2002.

----------

New York City firefighters recall "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

New York Post, 3/3/2004.

----------

"Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall."

Ken Holden, removal operations at Ground Zero, Testimony before the 9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003.
cerberus
11th May 2007 - 06:12 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 10 2007, 03:30 PM)
Hmmm.(thinking about your statement) One scientist calculates based on tests with a shotgun vs, over 200 scientists working within their fields of expertise. Sorry, NIST wins.




NIST was the one that conducted the shotgun tests, nitwit. You need to take your own advice and actually read the report sometime that forms the entire basis for your reality regarding this event.

QUOTE

Explosives??? What explosives??? NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE PENTAGON, WTC OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON 911.


No, only over 100 eyewitnesses, that's all. Many of which reporting explosions that did not coincide with the collapse of the buildings. Rescue workers in the sub-basement levels being killed or having to have facial reconstruction surgery from the effects of the explosions. Firefighters who know there were explosions but are afraid to talk for fear of losing their jobs. Eyewitness testimony is considered evidence in a court of law.

There were also shock-waves that blew out all the windows in the surrounding buildings. Steel beams being embedded in the surrounding buildings. There is also all of the video shot of the "spaghetti" steel.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Explosives??? What explosives??? NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE PENTAGON, WTC OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON 911.


No, only over 100 eyewitnesses, that's all. Many of which reporting explosions that did not coincide with the collapse of the buildings. Rescue workers in the sub-basement levels being killed or having to have facial reconstruction surgery from the effects of the explosions. Firefighters who know there were explosions but are afraid to talk for fear of losing their jobs. Eyewitness testimony is considered evidence in a court of law.

There were also shock-waves that blew out all the windows in the surrounding buildings. Steel beams being embedded in the surrounding buildings. There is also all of the video shot of the "spaghetti" steel.


Why do you idiots keep making stuff up for which there is absolutely no physical evidence???


Where is your physical evidence that the steel reached temperatures hot enough to weaken (over 350 C) much less fail?

Why do you idiots keep making stuff up for which there is no physical evidence?

QUOTE

Sorry, I thought I was talking to sane people, never mind.


Given your predilection for conducting conversations with yourself, I would worry more about your own sanity.
cerberus
11th May 2007 - 07:23 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 10 2007, 09:09 PM)
Sibel Edmonds' case is about the FBI and administration trying to cover their own butts in relation to their incompetence and the shoddy work being done at the FBI prior to and after 911. It has nothing to do with a coverup of some conspiracy by the government or of the governments involvement in 911.




You are such a liar. Why do you just make stuff up like this?

"If they were to do real investigations [into 9-11] we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."
--Sibel Edmonds

If it were simply incompetence and "shoddy work" as you suggest, she wouldn't be talking about criminal prosecutions.

According to Sibel's letter to the 9/11 Commission, it is not just about the FBI as you say. In her letter, she writes:

"If counterintelligence receives information about terrorism that implicates certain nations, semi-legit organizations or the politically powerful in this country, then that information is not shared with counterterrorism, regardless of the consequences."

"In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents have cited 'direct pressure by the State Department.'"

In an interview with Chris Deliso (http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=6934), Sibel states "The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies."

As Sibel states in "Gagged But Not Dead":

"The attorney general cites two reasons to justify the unconstitutional, panic-driven assault on me. Reason one: to protect certain diplomatic relations – not named since our officials are obviously ashamed to admit to these relations. Reason two: to protect certain U.S. business interests."

http://justacitizen.com/articles_documents...0not%20Dead.htm

As Sibel states in her interview with James Bamford:

"Everybody was happy in the end because on one hand you have corrupt congressional representatives – several of them, and they know who they are and they know about this case. Then, you have people in the State Department – you have at least one individual within the State Department – you have two or three individuals within the Pentagon and you also have certain well-known lobbyists. So this was a case where the Justice Department didn't want their own illegal actions, in terms of conducting these wiretap operations, to be known – so they had their own reason of quashing this thing and basically wanting to cover it up via the State Secrets Privilege."

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10650

Your assertion that it is just about shoddy FBI work and radical Muslims is way off base. Read the interview with her at the bottom of the post for further clarification of what this is all about.

QUOTE

Sibel Edmonds certainly understands who is responsible for 911 (the radical Muslim fundamentalists she was translating)


She was monitoring a lot more folks than just radical Muslims. She clearly wants to see some "high level" people in this country in jail for criminal conspiracy involving 9/11.

And about those "radical" coke-sniffing, stripper-loving Muslims:

Five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are evidently affiliated with secure U.S. military installations, according to information provided to the FBI by the U.S. military. Also, three of the alleged hijackers [including Saeed al-Ghamdi Ahmed] listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the "Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation." (Newsweek, 9/15/01; New York Times, 9/15/01; Washington Post, 9/16/01)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Sibel Edmonds certainly understands who is responsible for 911 (the radical Muslim fundamentalists she was translating)


She was monitoring a lot more folks than just radical Muslims. She clearly wants to see some "high level" people in this country in jail for criminal conspiracy involving 9/11.

And about those "radical" coke-sniffing, stripper-loving Muslims:

Five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are evidently affiliated with secure U.S. military installations, according to information provided to the FBI by the U.S. military. Also, three of the alleged hijackers [including Saeed al-Ghamdi Ahmed] listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the "Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation." (Newsweek, 9/15/01; New York Times, 9/15/01; Washington Post, 9/16/01)


Her point is that a competent FBI should have known much more about the attacks prior to 911, maybe even to the point of being able to stop them as they had ample evidence that something was being planned but missed it due to shoddy and late translation and lack of followup on that info they did have.


You've already demonstrated a shallow lack of understanding about the Sibel Edmonds' case. Instead of continuing to prattle on about topics with which you are unfamiliar with, let's just let Sibel speak for herself.

What follows is an excerpt from an interview published in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

JH: I understand why you can't say anything about this, but there are several books out about the Bush ties to the Saudis and the bin Ladens in particular. And in David Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, there is a very good synopsis of the ISI, which is the Pakistani intelligence service. He shows the direct connections between the CIA, the ISI, and Mohamed Atta. He makes a very convincing case that the Pakistani ISI had been helping to plan 9/11 for a long time.

I don't imagine that you are allowed to say much about that.

SE: You are correct. But I can tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And it boils down to people and their connections with this money, and that's the portion that, even with this book, has not been mentioned to this day. Because then it starts touching some people in high places.


JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.


....JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book, quoting from War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."

SE: I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.


JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.
einsteen
11th May 2007 - 08:49 AM
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 11 2007, 04:01 AM)
If fire were responsible for heating those compacted 3 floors of material into about 10 cubic feet of space, then we would not expect paper shreds to survive.

The meteorite is only a sample I assume, because mass cannot be compressed in a collapse but only pressed together.
cerberus
11th May 2007 - 08:57 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 10 2007, 03:53 PM)
Nope,

See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 pg 150

Insulation was assumed to be disloged from core columns only if the columns were subjected to direct impact that failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of the column.

For external columns the damage had to be severe enough to damage modular furniture adjacent to the columns and for trusses it had to destroy room furnishings in the same area as the trusses.




Arthur

"...failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of..."

"...damage modular furniture adjacent to the columns..."

"...destroy room furnishings in the same area as..."

Weasel words.

In NIST's shotgun tests (NCSTAR 1-6A), the fireproofing had to be sheared off via direct shotgun pellets from a shotgun blast with 1 MJ of kinetic energy per square meter. By sheared off, I mean that in their tests, the SFRM layer was only dislodged if the angle of impact by the shotgun pellets was adjusted to 0 through 40 degrees. At a debris trajectory based on 60 degree angle, the SFRM layer wasn't dislodged.

Where is your evidence that aircraft debris with a large distribution of shapes and sizes directed asymmetrically, that "failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of" core columns or damaged modular furniture "adjacent to the [external] columns" or caused the destruction of room furnishings "in the same area as" the trusses logically translates into 100,000 individual shotgun-sized debris field blasts with 1 MJ of kinetic energy per square meter, each one individually directed symmetrically and striking the 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface area assumed by NIST to have had the fireproofing dislodged from it at just the right 0 to 40 degree angle?

It's like the magic bullet theory all over again.

Where is your evidence that fireproofing was stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns by these magical shotgun-sized debris field blasts?

Whatever else one could say about you, you are no dummy. Surely you can see the problem here, even if you will never admit it in a million years.

Also, even giving you your ludicrous magic shotgun-blast debris field theory assumptions, dislodging the fireproofing over a 6,000 square meter surface area at 1 MJ per square meter of kinetic energy would require 6,000 MJ of kinetic energy. As NIST admits, only 2,500 MJ of kinetic energy was available from the plane impact.

Like the man said, physically impossible, and this is what NIST's entire conclusion rests on (the dislodging of the fireproofing).

And that's not even getting into the fact that all of the 2,500 MJ of kinetic energy was consumed in the crushing of the airplane and the breaking of the columns and floors.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...ft%20Impact.pdf

QUOTE

NIST was VERY conservative.


laugh.gif
Capracus
11th May 2007 - 11:10 AM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 04:55 AM)
This is false.  From your own source:

"The first two tests, conducted in early August 2004 at the UL facility in Toronto, Canada, looked at the fire performance of 11-meter (35-foot) floor systems coated with a near-uniform 19-millimeter-thick (0.75-inch) layer of fireproofing material. This is representative of the span size and as-applied average fireproofing thickness of the floor systems in the WTC towers."
The test spans were 17 ft and 35 ft. Actual spans were 35 ft and 60 ft. I guess it would have been more accurate to state that the test spans were 1/4 - 1/2 the length of the maximum actual spans.

QUOTE
Your calculations are false.  The 425,000 figure includes all concrete poured for the complex, including roads, driveways, parking garage, etc.
The 425,000 cubic yards is the number given by most fact pages, and I've seen it commonly applied to both towers. If you've got a better accounting of the concrete distribution, please post it. The 53,000 ton figure used by memeticverb is still only about half of the weight of the concrete used in the floor slabs alone.

If I see a glaring error, I will point it out. It does none of us any good to be using bogus figures.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Your calculations are false.  The 425,000 figure includes all concrete poured for the complex, including roads, driveways, parking garage, etc.
The 425,000 cubic yards is the number given by most fact pages, and I've seen it commonly applied to both towers. If you've got a better accounting of the concrete distribution, please post it. The 53,000 ton figure used by memeticverb is still only about half of the weight of the concrete used in the floor slabs alone.

If I see a glaring error, I will point it out. It does none of us any good to be using bogus figures.

This entire line of debate is also irrelevant as NIST's tests of the floor truss assemblies were based on "twice the floor load that was on the WTC floors."
The load was doubled to match the 1/2 scale test. Only the length was halved, which doubled the load capacity.
QUOTE (NIST NCSTAR 1-6B+)
4.1.5 Applied Load
The structural response of a floor assembly is also determined by the applied load which the ASTM E 119 Standard defines as the maximum load condition allowed under nationally recognized structural design criteria. For the correct structural response to be captured, the stresses in the reduced-scale test assembly resulting from the applied load should match, as closely as practical, those of the prototype floor system. It is this principal upon which the loading for the reduced-scale tests was calculated.
As discussed under geometric scaling, the shear force, which is a function of the applied load, and the section properties of the members determine the stresses in the truss web diagonals. If the scale factor is one half, the applied load must be doubled to produce the same shear force. Because the section properties are not scaled, doubling the magnitude of the applied load produces the same stresses in the diagonals of the reduced-scale assembly as in the prototype.

QUOTE
Two hour tests (vs. the actual 45 minute WTC fires) involving temperatures much more extreme than were known to have existed at WTC, that were found "capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
The tests were done with intact SFRM, that was not the likely the case in the impact zones. Not all of the SFRM had to be removed in order to weaken the joists. In fact as Chainsaw has pointed out, partial insulation would actually cause the joists to retain their heat.







Capracus
11th May 2007 - 12:41 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 08:57 AM)

In NIST's shotgun tests (NCSTAR 1-6A), the fireproofing had to be sheared off via direct shotgun pellets from a shotgun blast with 1 MJ of kinetic energy per square meter.  By sheared off, I mean that in their tests, the SFRM layer was only dislodged if the angle of impact by the shotgun pellets was adjusted to 0 through 40 degrees.  At a debris trajectory based on 60 degree angle, the SFRM layer wasn't dislodged.

Where is your evidence that aircraft debris with a large distribution of shapes and sizes directed asymmetrically, that "failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of" core columns or damaged modular furniture "adjacent to the [external] columns" or caused the destruction of room furnishings "in the same area as" the trusses logically translates into 100,000 individual shotgun-sized debris field blasts with 1 MJ of kinetic energy per square meter, each one individually directed symmetrically and striking the 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface area assumed by NIST to have had the fireproofing dislodged from it at just the right 0 to 40 degree angle?
The 1 MJ energy factor was to simulate the kinetic energy of debris impacting an 810 square meter area, not 6,000 square meters. The debris energies do not imply that it required that much energy to damage the SFRM.

The test results you are referencing were for steel plate. A separate test was done for bar shapes, which in the case of round bar, orientation isn't a factor since all angles are possible from any direction. The results of the bar tests showed that SFRM was easily damaged and removed from the bars.
QUOTE (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A+)
In the WTC Towers, where the debris fields were larger than the dimensions of steel components (i.e.,such as trusses, beams, and columns), these test show that SFRM would have been dislodged for a wide range of debris sizes and speeds. The test results support the assumption that within the debris field created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 and WTC 2, the SFRM used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged.


Grumpy
11th May 2007 - 03:20 PM
cerberus

The next time you feel the need to dump such a large load of CRAP, please use the bathroom. The stench from your posts is attrocious. (by the way, the quality of CRAP is not improved by increasing it's volume. I don't know about anyone else, but I stopped reading after the first two PRATT filled diatribes).

Grumpy cool.gif
Grumpy
11th May 2007 - 04:38 PM
einsteen

QUOTE
because mass cannot be compressed in a collapse but only pressed together.


NONSENSE!!! Pressed together IS compressing, the floors started at about 3 meters and ended up at about 1/3 of a meter in the meteor. Compressed, compacted, crushed, smashed together, don't let your symantics get in the way of your common sense, OK???

The "meteor' was kept because it was representative of the hundreds of thousands of TONS of rubble removed from the basement areas of both towers(and partly because cadaver dogs found no scent of human remains in this particular block). It is not molten steel, it is the remains of the floors and their contents compacted(if you like that word better) into a more or less solid mass. Fires had nothing to do with it's formation, just gravity.

Grumpy cool.gif
cerberus
11th May 2007 - 05:00 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+May 11 2007, 11:10 AM)
The test spans were 17 ft and 35 ft. Actual spans were 35 ft and 60 ft. I guess it would have been more accurate to state that the test spans were 1/4 - 1/2 the length of the maximum actual spans.


Quit lying. It only makes you look foolish. The tests represented "both full-scale (35 ft span) and reduced-scale (17 ft span) floor assemblies constructed to represent the original design as closely as possible." (NCSTAR1-6B). Your statement is not accurate.

If you want to discuss scaling issues, keep in mind that these tests do not scale well in terms of heat transference. The actual floor assemblies would have been more robust in terms of their ability to transfer heat to the rest of the structure. Read the actual report, which makes this admission.

QUOTE

The 425,000 cubic yards is the number given by most fact pages, and I've seen it commonly applied to both towers. If you've got a better accounting of the concrete distribution, please post it. The 53,000 ton figure used by memeticverb is still only about half of the weight of the concrete used in the floor slabs alone.


That's for the total concrete poured for the entire complex, so applying it to the floors is dubious. I'm not interesting in debating this point with you because it is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the test of the floor assemblies. See below.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The 425,000 cubic yards is the number given by most fact pages, and I've seen it commonly applied to both towers. If you've got a better accounting of the concrete distribution, please post it. The 53,000 ton figure used by memeticverb is still only about half of the weight of the concrete used in the floor slabs alone.


That's for the total concrete poured for the entire complex, so applying it to the floors is dubious. I'm not interesting in debating this point with you because it is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the test of the floor assemblies. See below.


The load was doubled to match the 1/2 scale test. Only the length was halved, which doubled the load capacity.


This is another lie. Where, exactly, are you getting this stuff from so we know which sources can be discounted as not being credible?

The tests were based on "maximum design load" (i.e., double the weight known to have been on the floors.) See: (NCSTAR1-6B)

QUOTE

The tests were done with intact SFRM, that was not the likely the case in the impact zones.


Not exactly. The 17 ft span test, which is the standard length used in ASTM E119 testing of floor assemblies, had "no SFRM on the bridging trusses nor on underside of of the metal deck." (NCSTAR 1-6 page 1xxiii). Also, "the upgraded insulation [on the trusses] was thermally equivalent to a uniform thickness of 2.2 in." (NCSTAR 1-6 page 1xxi), but in the floor assembly tests, they used thicknesses of 1/2" and 3/4" (NCSTAR1-6B).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The tests were done with intact SFRM, that was not the likely the case in the impact zones.


Not exactly. The 17 ft span test, which is the standard length used in ASTM E119 testing of floor assemblies, had "no SFRM on the bridging trusses nor on underside of of the metal deck." (NCSTAR 1-6 page 1xxiii). Also, "the upgraded insulation [on the trusses] was thermally equivalent to a uniform thickness of 2.2 in." (NCSTAR 1-6 page 1xxi), but in the floor assembly tests, they used thicknesses of 1/2" and 3/4" (NCSTAR1-6B).


Not all of the SFRM had to be removed in order to weaken the joists. In fact as Chainsaw has pointed out, partial insulation would actually cause the joists to retain their heat.


Do you have any real evidence, at all, that proves that floor assembly tests involving either no fireproofing or insufficient fireproofing in which two hours in a high temperature furnace (compared to 45 minute WTC fires) under twice the known floor load, and in which the deck of the floor model sagged about 3 inches in the middle and the major joist parts did not sag at all, should form the logical basis for a dramatic 42 inch sagging and joists getting bent down severely in NIST's bogus computer simulation?

<chirping crickets>
adoucette
11th May 2007 - 05:08 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 11 2007, 10:20 AM)
cerberus

The next time you feel the need to dump such a large load of CRAP, please use the bathroom. The stench from your posts is attrocious. (by the way, the quality of CRAP is not improved by increasing it's volume. I don't know about anyone else, but I stopped reading after the first two PRATT filled diatribes).

Grumpy cool.gif

Its interesting to note that Seibel Edmonds is simply a TRANSLATOR.

So its not clear where she gets the info to make all her claims.

QUOTE
"The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies."


What does she have to do with the DOS?

Or this priceless piece of BS:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies."


What does she have to do with the DOS?

Or this priceless piece of BS:

....JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book, quoting from War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."

SE: I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.


She can't comment on what's in a BOOK?

Bull.

So then I did a little research on the source of all this and found this telling piece at the end:

QUOTE
The likes of Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodard and Judith Miller should put their tails between their legs and slink away, while the obscure academic, Dr. David Ray Griffin, while candidate John Buchanan, citizen Eric Hufschmid, author Gore Vidal, independent journalists Michael Ruppert and Christopher Bollyn, and the 9/11 families are recognized among those who kept open the window to Democracy.


So net/net this is just another TROOTHER INTERNET RAG helping these vultures sell their books to make more blood money.

Arthur





cerberus
11th May 2007 - 05:21 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 11 2007, 03:20 PM)
cerberus

The next time you feel the need to dump such a large load of CRAP, please use the bathroom. The stench from your posts is attrocious. (by the way, the quality of CRAP is not improved by increasing it's volume. I don't know about anyone else, but I stopped reading after the first two PRATT filled diatribes).

Grumpy cool.gif

Your complete inability to provide any logical counter-arguments to a single technical point made in any of my posts is noted.

In this post, you are employing what is known as the ad-hominem logical fallacy. Typically employed by somebody who lacks the ability to present a rational argument.

You need to spend some time at the following site learning how to differentiate between a logically invalid argument and a logically valid argument:

Fallacies
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

For your edification, here is a description of the ad-hominem logical fallacy that you are employing in this post:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html



newton
11th May 2007 - 05:36 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 10 2007, 11:07 PM)


The fused together stuff includes paper sticking out, some on which writing is still visible. This so-called meteorite is primarily a highly compacted collection of parts of several floors. No molten metal.

i read somewhere that that paper isn't paper, anymore, although the writing is still visible. i've seen paper turn to ash like this in a smoldering fire, before. in other words, the paper is fused into the pile, too.
Grumpy
11th May 2007 - 06:18 PM
cerberus

Actually, your posts were so full of disinformation, lies and logic bereft arguements that one hardly knows where to start digging. A perfect example of the old saw, "If you can't argue with wit, dazzle them with BS".

As just one example...

QUOTE
They have estimated, as have all other engineers that have studied the event, that the damage caused by the impact of the planes was minimal.


That is just a lie...


April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU


http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/AR...9/443801bdadd6e

Most engineers have simular opinions, the damage done by the impacts was severe and the weakening by subsiquent fires all that is needed to explain the collapses.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
They have estimated, as have all other engineers that have studied the event, that the damage caused by the impact of the planes was minimal.


That is just a lie...


April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU


http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/AR...9/443801bdadd6e

Most engineers have simular opinions, the damage done by the impacts was severe and the weakening by subsiquent fires all that is needed to explain the collapses.

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel is still running."

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, 10/2001, reporting on a speech given at the Structural Engineers Associations 9th Annual Conference by Leslie Robertson, Lead Structural Engineer for WTC.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf


Robertson himself claims this report as bogus, he says he saw no evidence of molten steel. No pools of hardened , previously molten steel was found anywhere on the WTC sites. That is just a fact. Eyewitness accounts are the lowest form of evidence(ask any prosequtor). If there is a conflict between what someone says they saw(actually, what they THINK they saw) and what the physical evidence says, the physical evidence is superior(ask any falsly convicted rapist freed because of DNA evidence).

So, since no solidified molten steel was found, those who say they saw streams of molten steel are either...

A) Deluded or fooled by what they did see(example, streams of dirty water reflecting the glow of the hot steel around it).

cool.gif Using hyperboly to enhance the story being told( example "Molten streams of steel" sure makes a better headline than "the pile was still hot".

C) Simply wrong (noone I know has a spectrograph in their eyeball, so if they see something flowing and glowing they still do not know the composition of that substance. Pools of solidified MOLTEN GLASS were found, and when hot looks just like molten steel).

D) Lying(or telling tall tales, as my daddy used to say) through ignorance or intent.

Your posts are full of this type of garbage, I don't have time to waste on suche easily(but lengthy)refuted trash. Especially when you dump it by the truck load.

Grumpy cool.gif

cerberus
11th May 2007 - 07:06 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 11 2007, 05:08 PM)
Its interesting to note that Sibel Edmonds is simply a TRANSLATOR.

So its not clear where she gets the info to make all her claims.


Since this is a technical board, I think the members would appreciate keeping the non-technical discussion to a minimum. There is plenty of information available on the Sibel Edmonds' case for people to follow-up on their own. This will be my last post on this topic so I can move on to the points raised in response to my posts about the fireproofing.

Sibel Edmonds had a top secret clearance and was part of the FBI's Counter-Intelligence (CI) group monitoring via wiretaps (with FISA warrants) the domestic activities here in the U.S. of foreign governments, "semi-legitimate organizations" (i.e., lobbyists), and politically-powerful people in the congressional and executive branches of our own government, as well as same in major corporations doing business with foreign business interests. (e.g., Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the American Turkish Council, Assembly of Turkish American Associations, AIPAC, politically powerful and well-known people in State, Pentagon, Congress, etc.)

According to the Sept. 2005 issue of Vanity Fair reporting on Sibel's congressional testimony, she provided some examples of the types of conversations she was monitoring with these FISA wiretaps:

"According to (Sibel's) later secure testimony, in one conversation... a Turkish official spoke directly to a U.S. State Department staffer. They suggested that the State Department staffer would send a representative at an appointed time to the American-Turkish Council office, at 1111 14th St. NW, where he would be given $7,000 in cash. "She told us she'd heard mention of exchanges of information, dead drops—that kind of thing," a congressional source says. "It was mostly money in exchange for secrets...

...Yet another (conversation) implied that Turkish groups had been installing doctoral students at U.S. research institutions in order to acquire information about black market nuclear weapons. In fact, much of what Edmonds reportedly heard seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity..."

Daniel Ellsberg, reporting on the same congressional testimony, was more explicit:

"there's a great deal of dealing of information in illicit arms trades including, (Sibel) says, nuclear information, from our nuclear weapons labs - for which cold cash is paid - to people in the labs, and to people, she says, to people in the State Department - who have essentially given 'OKs' for various trades, or have turned a blind eye - deliberately - to it."

QUOTE

What does she have to do with the DOS?


As stated, State Dept. officials were some of the individuals being monitored. It was also the State Department, along with the Pentagon, not the FBI, that invoked the "State Secret Privilege" in order to gag Sibel Edmonds, according to the Dept. of Justice, in order to "protect certain diplomatic relations" and to "protect certain U.S. business interests."

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What does she have to do with the DOS?


As stated, State Dept. officials were some of the individuals being monitored. It was also the State Department, along with the Pentagon, not the FBI, that invoked the "State Secret Privilege" in order to gag Sibel Edmonds, according to the Dept. of Justice, in order to "protect certain diplomatic relations" and to "protect certain U.S. business interests."


She can't comment on what's in a BOOK?

Bull.


Yes. She is under a "State Secret Privilege" gag order invoked by the State Department and the Pentagon and issued by the Justice Dept. She is under more gag orders than anybody in the history of our country. Durrrrr.

I'm sure the State Department and the Pentagon placing Sibel under more "state secret" gag orders than anyone in our country's history is simply because she doesn't really know anything. laugh.gif

QUOTE

So net/net this is just another TROOTHER INTERNET RAG helping these vultures sell their books to make more blood money.


Of course. Your complete lack of concern over criminal activities involving high-level officials in the government, stuff like nuclear secrets being sold for cash, is very telling... but expected.

Mommy (government) after all always has our best interests at heart. It is just unthinkable that government officials would be involved in criminal betrayals of their own citizens.
adoucette
11th May 2007 - 07:12 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 03:57 AM)
"...failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of..."

"...damage modular furniture adjacent to the columns..."

"...destroy room furnishings in the same area as..."

Weasel words.

In NIST's shotgun tests (NCSTAR 1-6A), the fireproofing had to be sheared off via direct shotgun pellets from a shotgun blast with 1 MJ of kinetic energy per square meter. By sheared off, I mean that in their tests, the SFRM layer was only dislodged if the angle of impact by the shotgun pellets was adjusted to 0 through 40 degrees. At a debris trajectory based on 60 degree angle, the SFRM layer wasn't dislodged.

Where is your evidence that aircraft debris with a large distribution of shapes and sizes directed asymmetrically, that "failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of" core columns or damaged modular furniture "adjacent to the [external] columns" or caused the destruction of room furnishings "in the same area as" the trusses logically translates into 100,000 individual shotgun-sized debris field blasts with 1 MJ of kinetic energy per square meter, each one individually directed symmetrically and striking the 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface area assumed by NIST to have had the fireproofing dislodged from it at just the right 0 to 40 degree angle?

It's like the magic bullet theory all over again.

Where is your evidence that fireproofing was stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns by these magical shotgun-sized debris field blasts?

Whatever else one could say about you, you are no dummy. Surely you can see the problem here, even if you will never admit it in a million years.

Also, even giving you your ludicrous magic shotgun-blast debris field theory assumptions, dislodging the fireproofing over a 6,000 square meter surface area at 1 MJ per square meter of kinetic energy would require 6,000 MJ of kinetic energy. As NIST admits, only 2,500 MJ of kinetic energy was available from the plane impact.

Like the man said, physically impossible, and this is what NIST's entire conclusion rests on (the dislodging of the fireproofing).

And that's not even getting into the fact that all of the 2,500 MJ of kinetic energy was consumed in the crushing of the airplane and the breaking of the columns and floors.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...ft%20Impact.pdf



laugh.gif

BS, those words are QUITE descriptive.

Those tests were the basis that only SFRM in the DIRECT PATH of the debris was considered to be removed and then ONLY if the debris had sufficient energy to create the damage described.

I know of NO place where NIST assumed that the fireproofing was removed from beneath the aluminum cladding. Since that is on the OUTSIDE of the building I suspect it would have NO IMPACT one way or the other.

Your continual reference to the 6,000 sq meter area has NO BASIS in what NIST did.

The MIT tests you reference didn't include anything BUT the structure, so it is WRONG to say that all of the Kinetic energy was consumed JUST in those areas. This is the reason that MIT overstated the amount of Column Damage though.

See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Section 7.11.2 where NIST compares its study with the MIT study and points out that the MIT study "did not include the energy absorbed by internal tower contents"

Arthur







adoucette
11th May 2007 - 07:19 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 02:06 PM)
Since this is a technical board, I think the members would appreciate keeping the non-technical discussion to a minimum. There is plenty of information available on the Sibel Edmonds' case for people to follow-up on their own. This will be my last post on this topic so I can move on to the points raised in response to my posts about the fireproofing.

Sibel Edmonds had a top secret clearance and was part of the FBI's Counter-Intelligence (CI) group monitoring via wiretaps (with FISA warrants) the domestic activities here in the U.S. of foreign governments, "semi-legitimate organizations" (i.e., lobbyists), and politically-powerful people in the congressional and executive branches of our own government, as well as same in major corporations doing business with foreign business interests. (e.g., Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the American Turkish Council, Assembly of Turkish American Associations, AIPAC, politically powerful and well-known people in State, Pentagon, Congress, etc.)

According to the Sept. 2005 issue of Vanity Fair reporting on Sibel's congressional testimony, she provided some examples of the types of conversations she was monitoring with these FISA wiretaps:

"According to (Sibel's) later secure testimony, in one conversation... a Turkish official spoke directly to a U.S. State Department staffer. They suggested that the State Department staffer would send a representative at an appointed time to the American-Turkish Council office, at 1111 14th St. NW, where he would be given $7,000 in cash. "She told us she'd heard mention of exchanges of information, dead drops—that kind of thing," a congressional source says. "It was mostly money in exchange for secrets...

...Yet another (conversation) implied that Turkish groups had been installing doctoral students at U.S. research institutions in order to acquire information about black market nuclear weapons. In fact, much of what Edmonds reportedly heard seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity..."

Daniel Ellsberg, reporting on the same congressional testimony, was more explicit:

"there's a great deal of dealing of information in illicit arms trades including, (Sibel) says, nuclear information, from our nuclear weapons labs - for which cold cash is paid - to people in the labs, and to people, she says, to people in the State Department - who have essentially given 'OKs' for various trades, or have turned a blind eye - deliberately - to it."



As stated, State Dept. officials were some of the individuals being monitored. It was also the State Department, along with the Pentagon, not the FBI, that invoked the "State Secret Privilege" in order to gag Sibel Edmonds, according to the Dept. of Justice, in order to "protect certain diplomatic relations" and to "protect certain U.S. business interests."



Yes. She is under a "State Secret Privilege" gag order invoked by the State Department and the Pentagon and issued by the Justice Dept. She is under more gag orders than anybody in the history of our country. Durrrrr.

I'm sure the State Department and the Pentagon placing Sibel under more "state secret" gag orders than anyone in our country's history is simply because she doesn't really know anything. laugh.gif



Of course. Your complete lack of concern over criminal activities involving high-level officials in the government, stuff like nuclear secrets being sold for cash, is very telling... but expected.

Mommy (government) after all always has our best interests at heart. It is just unthinkable that government officials would be involved in criminal betrayals of their own citizens.

In all that, not one thing that has ANYTHING to do with 9/11.

As to Siebel, the State's Secret Privilige is NOT a gag order and ONLY applies to testimony in a court, she can friggin write a book about what she knows.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege

I have plenty of concern about anyone breaking the law, and IF I knew of people that were selling state secrets you can be sure I would get the word out.

Its INTERESTING that all the people you claim KNOW about it, actually do NOTHING.

Well, besides go on radio talk shows, or show up in that rag you posted.

Arthur

adoucette
11th May 2007 - 07:28 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 12:00 PM)
Do you have any real evidence, at all, that proves that floor assembly tests involving either no fireproofing or insufficient fireproofing in which two hours in a high temperature furnace (compared to 45 minute WTC fires) under twice the known floor load, and in which the deck of the floor model sagged about 3 inches in the middle and the major joist parts did not sag at all, should form the logical basis for a dramatic 42 inch sagging and joists getting bent down severely in NIST's bogus computer simulation?

You are mixing apples and oranges.

The oven tests were to find out if the Trusses as built with the SPECIFIED 1/2" of SFRM applied AS SPECIFIED, met the ASTM fire rating that they were supposed to have.

They didn't, instead of the specified 2 hour rating they only managed 45 minutes.

The deflections were also quite a bit more than the 3" you claim.

See NIST NCSTAR 1-6B Figure 6-9 pg where in both Test 1 and 2 the deflection OF INSULATED TRUSSES exceeded one foot (15" in Test 1) and in both cases, the test was halted because either the deflection became to large to measure or because of imminent collapse. See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Table 5-5.

The other tests/experiments/modelling NIST did were to determine how hot the trusses IN THE CONDITIONS within the tower would become and what would happen to them.

Those tests couldn't be done in the oven because no oven would support that kind of damage to the truss.

But if you think that NIST's fire tests are bogus all you have to do is PROVE IT.

laugh.gif

Oh and those Corus Tests you CLAIM showed that steel didn't get that hot in a fire.

NOPE

JUST THE OPPOSITE

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...stBRE215741.pdf

See Fig 23 Mid Span Beam Temps.

Note how ALL of them are OVER 800 C

Hoisted on your own petard.

Again.

Arthur
adoucette
11th May 2007 - 08:07 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 02:23 AM)
"If they were to do real investigations [into 9-11] we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."
--Sibel Edmonds


Except we find that her complaint is does not allege any criminal misconduct:

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT PETITIONER PERFORMED TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR THE FBI FROM SEPTEMBER 2001 UNTIL HER CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED IN MARCH 2002, AND MADE SEVERAL REPORTS TO FBI MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT WITHIN THE FBI’S TRANSLATOR PROGRAM BETWEEN DECEMBER 2001 AND MARCH 2002. IN PETITIONER’S VIEW, FBI SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS FAILED TO ADDRESS HER ALLEGATIONS AND RETALIATED AGAINST HER FOR REPORTING HER CONCERNS.

And as far as the evidence coming to light, apparently it was reviewed by the courts:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, PETITIONER NEVER ARGUED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE UNDERTAKEN FURTHER REVIEW OF THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, AND INSTEAD RECOGNIZED THAT “THE COURT APPARENTLY CONSIDERED DEFENDANTS’ SECRET EVIDENCE IN DETAIL.”

http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_docum.../opp_101705.pdf

Apparently the court didn't think the value of the evidence out weighed the damage that would be done by releasing it.

Are the Courts IN ON IT too?????

Arthur
Grumpy
11th May 2007 - 09:15 PM
adoucette

QUOTE
Oh and those Corus Tests you CLAIM showed that steel didn't get that hot in a fire.

NOPE

JUST THE OPPOSITE


I especially thought the unprotected steel temps were significant. See figure 21.

At 53 minutes the gas temp reached a peak of just over 1000C and the unprotected steel reaches just under 1000C, providing support for NIST's view of the situation in the towers, not for cerebus's lies. 53 minutes is eerily simular to the time the towers took to collapse after the fires started and at almost 1000C the steel would have lost a lot of it's structural strength.

I guess we really ought to be thanking cerebus. Not only does he provide evidence confirming NIST's conclusions, but he perfectly illustrates the dishonesty and ignorance(not to mention stupidity) of the CTer movement.

Grumpy cool.gif
adoucette
11th May 2007 - 09:17 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 12:00 PM)
QUOTE (Capracus+)
The load was doubled to match the 1/2 scale test. Only the length was halved, which doubled the load capacity.


This is another lie. Where, exactly, are you getting this stuff from so we know which sources can be discounted as not being credible?


He told you.

NIST NCSTAR 1-6B Section 4.1.5 Applied load (second paragraph).

Read it

Then apologize.

Arthur
Alan (ex elevator man)
11th May 2007 - 09:27 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 11 2007, 03:15 PM)


I guess we really ought to be thanking cerebus. Not only does he provide evidence confirming NIST's conclusions, but he perfectly illustrates the dishonesty and ignorance(not to mention stupidity) of the CTer movement.

Well, I didn't dare remark until I read it all, and he finally got a little of the truth in about Sibel Edmonds. I seen her segment on 60 Minutes BEFORE she was "gagged", and there was nothing mentioned even remotely pertaining to 9/11. Like the C-dude finally mentioned, it was all about TURKEY and some shady dealings of weapons and payoffs, and a Turkish/American group here in the U.S. No 9/11, no Saudis, no Atta... nothing at all about what the C-dude's first 10 or so posts claim. Why the 'troothers' latch onto her and claim shyt that has no connection is just another proof they are full of it.
einsteen
11th May 2007 - 09:54 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 11 2007, 04:38 PM)
einsteen



NONSENSE!!! Pressed together IS compressing, the floors started at about 3 meters and ended up at about 1/3 of a meter in the meteor. Compressed, compacted, crushed, smashed together, don't let your symantics get in the way of your common sense, OK???

The "meteor' was kept because it was representative of the hundreds of thousands of TONS of rubble removed from the basement areas of both towers(and partly because cadaver dogs found no scent of human remains in this particular block). It is not molten steel, it is the remains of the floors and their contents compacted(if you like that word better) into a more or less solid mass. Fires had nothing to do with it's formation, just gravity.

Grumpy cool.gif

To be more precise I mean that in a gravitational collapse the density of the mass afterwards cannot be larger than the average density of the live load when the air is removed (when we take into account a chemical correction) because we are not in a neutron star or white dwarf. Compressing matter takes an extreme amount of energy and even the potential energy of all wtcs combined cannot do that. Of course that didn't happen.
adoucette
11th May 2007 - 10:17 PM
Re Seibel:

She claimed
QUOTE
"The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies."
which, considering her short employment in the FBI as a TRANSLATOR made me ask"

"What does she have to do with the DOS?"

But your response is not true.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies."
which, considering her short employment in the FBI as a TRANSLATOR made me ask"

"What does she have to do with the DOS?"

But your response is not true.


As stated, State Dept. officials were some of the individuals being monitored.  It was also the State Department, along with the Pentagon, not the FBI, that invoked the "State Secret Privilege" in order to gag Sibel Edmonds, according to the Dept. of Justice, in order to "protect certain diplomatic relations" and to "protect certain U.S. business interests."



The State Secret Privilige request was made on behalf of the DOJ and the FBI, not the DOS.

See: http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_docum...Declaration.pdf

Finally, there is NOTHING in the STATE SECRETS ACT results in a GAG ORDER.

It simply says Seibel can't use the documents in question in a trial as evidence.

As a CHECK on the govt's case, the COURT gets to see the documents in question.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I believe Seibel's original complaints were likely valid, they just have NOTHING to do with 9/11. See: http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2917 for more about her actual complaints, and I believe her firing was likely unjust, but I also believe that Ashcroft's decision made sense, as sad as it is, I think all Ashcroft was trying to do was keep our enemies from knowing HOW PATHETIC this part of our intelligence service really is.

Arthur
cerberus
11th May 2007 - 10:50 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+May 11 2007, 12:41 PM)

The 1 MJ energy factor was to simulate the kinetic energy of debris impacting an 810 square meter area, not 6,000 square meters.


Where does this 810 square meter estimate come from? Source? Diagrams?

The 6,000 square meters comes from NIST's own estimates of the areas where fire protection damage occurred. Here is a presentation given by NIST specifically on this topic:

Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/sess...6McAllister.pdf

The diagrams depicting where the fireproofing was dislodged (according to NIST) for WTC 1 are on pages 31 and 32.

Their assumptions:

Trusses:

"If the debris impact damaged or destroyed room furnishings (modular office workstations), then the debris field was considered to extend high enough and be strong enough to dislodge the fire protection in the same floor area."

Core Columns:

"If debris impact failed partitions immediately in front of core columns, then the fire protection was assumed to be dislodged over the floor height on core columns behind failed partitions."

Exterior Columns:

"If debris impact damaged or destroyed room furnishings (modular office workstations) adjacent to the exterior columns, then the fire protection on the inside face of the exterior columns in the same vicinity was assumed to be dislodged over the floor height."

NIST assumes fireproofing was dislodged on intact floors and columns over more than twice your 810 square meters of surface area figure on Floor 94 of WTC 1 alone.

QUOTE

The debris energies do not imply that it required that much energy to damage the SFRM.


"Therefore, the impact parameters (impact speed and kinetic energy per unit area) used in the experiments are considered representative of these parameters in the aircraft impact analysis of the WTC towers."

"Based on the observations made in the ballistic impact tests, the SFRM was dislodged by direct impact with solid objects that had a kinetic energy per unit impact area approaching 104 to 105 ft lb/ft2 (105 to 106 J/m2)."

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The debris energies do not imply that it required that much energy to damage the SFRM.


"Therefore, the impact parameters (impact speed and kinetic energy per unit area) used in the experiments are considered representative of these parameters in the aircraft impact analysis of the WTC towers."

"Based on the observations made in the ballistic impact tests, the SFRM was dislodged by direct impact with solid objects that had a kinetic energy per unit impact area approaching 104 to 105 ft lb/ft2 (105 to 106 J/m2)."


The test results you are referencing were for steel plate. A separate test was done for bar shapes, which in the case of round bar, orientation isn't a factor since all angles are possible from any direction.

The results of the bar tests showed that SFRM was easily damaged and removed from the bars.


The tests involving the bar shapes with the small diameter don't help your case from a kinetic energy per unit impact area standpoint, but I agree that orientation wasn't a factor for these tests.

For all structural steel involving flat surfaces, we are back to the original problem of the fireproofing only being dislodged if the debris was directed very symmetrically at angles of 0 to 40 degrees.

QUOTE

In the WTC Towers, where the debris fields were larger than the dimensions of steel components (i.e.,such as trusses, beams, and columns), these test show that SFRM would have been dislodged for a wide range of debris sizes and speeds.

The test results support the assumption that within the debris field created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 and WTC 2, the SFRM used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged.


There is nothing here in your post which answers my question to you and adoucette:

Where is your evidence that aircraft debris with a large distribution of shapes and sizes directed asymmetrically, that "failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of" core columns or damaged modular furniture "adjacent to the [external] columns" or caused the destruction of room furnishings "in the same area as" the trusses logically translates into 100,000 individual shotgun-sized debris field blasts with 1 MJ of kinetic energy per square meter, each one individually directed very symmetrically [at least at the flat surfaces] and striking the 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface area assumed by NIST to have had the fireproofing dislodged from it at just the right 0 to 40 degree angle [again, at least at the flat surfaces]?

Again, the question is especially pertinent given that the 2,500 MJ of kinetic energy available from the plane impact was consumed in the crushing of the airplane and the breaking of columns and floors.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...ft%20Impact.pdf
adoucette
12th May 2007 - 12:04 AM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 05:50 PM)
The 6,000 square meters comes from NIST's own estimates of the areas where fire protection damage occurred.  Here is a presentation given by NIST specifically on this topic:

Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/sess...6McAllister.pdf

The diagrams depicting where the fireproofing was dislodged (according to NIST) for WTC 1 are on pages 31 and 32.

Their assumptions:

Trusses:

"If the debris impact damaged or destroyed room furnishings (modular office workstations), then the debris field was considered to extend high enough and be strong enough to dislodge the fire protection in the same floor area."

Core Columns:

"If debris impact failed partitions immediately in front of core columns, then the fire protection was assumed to be dislodged over the floor height on core columns behind failed partitions."

Exterior Columns:

"If debris impact damaged or destroyed room furnishings (modular office workstations) adjacent to the exterior columns, then the fire protection on the inside face of the exterior columns in the same vicinity was assumed to be dislodged over the floor height."

NIST assumes fireproofing was dislodged on intact floors and columns over more than twice your 810 square meters of surface area figure on Floor 94 of WTC 1 alone.


Well you are simply misreading the report.

NIST shows in the diagram the ENTIRE AREA where SFRM was disloged from but They do not say that ALL the SFRM was disloged in that area.

The SFRM that was disloged in that area had to meet the OTHER CRITERIA that NIST specified.

As usual, NIST was CONSERVATIVE.

You CAN'T use the MIT study to support your view since they DIDN'T include the office materials in their analysis. As NIST points out, leaving out the office materials causes them to OVER ESTIMATE the damage done to the core columns by the impact.

Arthur
Grumpy
12th May 2007 - 12:14 AM
cerberus

QUOTE
Blah, blah blah...insulation...blah, blah blah...shotguns...blah, blah, blah...


One question...

Why was fire protection required on steel if fire cannot affect that steel??? And are you aware that partially stripped insulation is WORSE than no insulation at all, aren't you??? Also, what was the condition of the fireproofing prior to 911??? Any indication that the shoddy aplication, missing sections and uneven coverage problems had been addressed and rectified???

IE, quit picking at this nit, it isn't really a big problem, just a little sideshow.

Grumpy cool.gif
adoucette
12th May 2007 - 12:21 AM
I'm not sure partially stripped insulation is worse than no insulation, but NIST clearly showed through their experiments that for SFRM to be effective it had to have full coverage. Even partially stripped insulation allowed heat to quickly rise to DAMAGING levels to penetrate the steel, and for a beam to be able to hold its load, it doesn't matter that only a foot or so of a supporting beam is at 800C.

Arthur
quicknthedead
12th May 2007 - 01:07 AM
New Paper by Gordon Ross:

"NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE"

Journal of 9/11 Studies 39 May 2007
http://www.journalof911studies.com/


HE RESTORES MY SOUL
David B. Benson
12th May 2007 - 01:35 AM
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 12 2007, 01:07 AM)
New Paper by Gordon Ross

But GR makes no reference to NCSTAR1-6, in section 9.4.4, where the B&V paper is considered (along with four other studies):

"NIST agrees with the assessment of the tower's required structural capacity to absorb the released energy of the upper building section as it begins to fall as an approximate lower bound. The likelihood of the falling building section aligning vertically with the columns below was small, given the observed tilting, so that the required capacity would be greater if interaction with the floors was considered, as pointed out in the study." (emphasis added)

Since GR is still under the illusion that the column members continued to be concentrically axial, the work is not worth the (low) cost of the storage it occupies. dry.gif
reasonwhy
12th May 2007 - 03:45 AM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 11 2007, 05:35 PM)
But GR makes no reference to NCSTAR1-6, in section 9.4.4, where the B&V paper is considered (along with four other studies):

"NIST agrees with the assessment of the tower's required structural capacity to absorb the released energy of the upper building section as it begins to fall as an approximate lower bound.  The likelihood of the falling building section aligning vertically with the columns below was small, given the observed tilting, so that the required capacity would be greater if interaction with the floors was considered, as pointed out in the study." (emphasis added)

Since GR is still under the illusion that the column members continued to be concentrically axial, the work is not worth the (low) cost of the storage it occupies.  dry.gif

DBB, you’re not upset because Gordon makes proponents of the crush down – crush up" theory appear foolish? biggrin.gif

QUOTE
This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction. To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down – crush up" theory.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...seAnalysis2.pdf

Gordon has a way of simplifying problems so even NIST apologists can understand them (then attack the messenger). laugh.gif
tweaker
12th May 2007 - 08:19 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 12 2007, 12:21 AM)
I'm not sure partially stripped insulation is worse than no insulation...

Just a thought about the idea of partial insulation being a greater hazard than no insulation:

Okay, fire contacts and heats the steel that the insulation has been removed from, and the energy absorbed by the steel is transmitted throughout the steel, to areas of the steel beams covered by the insulation. Wouldn't the remaining insulation actually retain the heat in these unexposed areas, allowing them to maintain temperatures greater than what would be attainable with no insulation, as exposure to air would allow the steel to release the heat?
Grumpy
12th May 2007 - 01:23 PM
reasonlesswhine

QUOTE
Gordon has a way of simplifying problems so even NIST apologists can understand...


...that he doesn't know a thing about which he speaks. The bottom portion of the towers is in no way analogous to a solid truck. It was a tube, into which the top block fell.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gordon has a way of simplifying problems so even NIST apologists can understand...


...that he doesn't know a thing about which he speaks. The bottom portion of the towers is in no way analogous to a solid truck. It was a tube, into which the top block fell.

HE RESTORES MY SOUL


I hope you and Gordon are very happy together, though you might want to move to New England so you can make your relationship legal.

Grumpy cool.gif
Palpatane
12th May 2007 - 02:23 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 10 2007, 10:15 PM)

The fireproofing issue is one big red herring, however.  Not only did the short-lived (45 minute) fires in the WTC complex not cause the steel to reach temperatures hot enough to weaken it, high rise buildings in the past have burned intensely for up to 17 hours over multiple floors, long past the point when their fireproofing was in affect (2 hours), and not collapsed.  Buildings that are still standing and in use today.


If you are referring to the Parque Central tower in Caracas, then you should know that like the Windsor tower in Spain, the primary structural elements of the building were reinforced concrete.

QUOTE
The twin towers of the building were completed in 1982 as part of a 25-acre (10-hectare) complex known as Parque Central, which was built between 1970 and 1982. The complex also contains more than 1,100 retail stores, seven 40-story residential towers, and a 35-story hotel. The East Tower has 56 floors above ground and 4 underground, with a total height of 725 feet (221 meters). Each floor plate covers an area of 20,450 square feet (1,900 square meters) that includes eight elevator banks and two enclosed, remote fire exit stairwells (see floor plan).
The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.
Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.


source

Therefore any comparison of the response of Caracas building to fire to the response of the WTC buildings to fire is like comparing the WTC buildings to an ancient villa in Pompeii during the eruption of Vesuvius.


Sorry, try again.
adoucette
12th May 2007 - 02:37 PM
QUOTE
The fireproofing issue is one big red herring, however.  Not only did the short-lived (45 minute) fires in the WTC complex not cause the steel to reach temperatures hot enough to weaken it, high rise buildings in the past have burned intensely for up to 17 hours over multiple floors, long past the point when their fireproofing was in affect (2 hours), and not collapsed.  Buildings that are still standing and in use today.


Its a silly comparison anyway.

The LENGTH of time a structure is on fire is not relevant, because the fuel is exhausted in each area after a finite amount of time. The smaller the sq ft per floor the shorter the burn time per floor. The more INTERNAL PARTITIONS, the slower the fire can spread. The WTC towers of course had some of the the LARGEST OPEN floor areas of any building.

Even so:

The NIST report indicates that the WTC towers probably wouldn't have collapsed if the fireproofing hadn't been disloged

The fireproofing wouldn't have been disloged if this HUGE FREAKING PLANE hadn't run into it at ~ 500 MPH.

So CLEARLY a fire ALONE wouldn't have caused the collapse of the towers either.

Arthur
einsteen
12th May 2007 - 04:29 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 12 2007, 01:23 PM)
The bottom portion of the towers is in no way analogous to a solid truck. It was a tube, into which the top block fell.

There is absolutely no proof that this happened. When some material funnels into the building at one side then the other side funnels in fact into the top block. Of course we have collapsing mass on top of other mass but the same for the columns

User posted image

But after a few months here nobody could explain how this model would behave, ok we've seen tons of videos and we all see how the outside behaves, what happens inside the building? How does a top block that still contains trusses, perimeter and core columns fall into the building ? If you say it falls on the building, ok then and then you only have to explain how your model works.
adoucette
12th May 2007 - 05:13 PM
Einsteen,

There are many HUNDREDS of pictures of the debris around ground zero.

There are HUNDREDS of pictures of the steel from the towers.

BASED ON THESE PICTURES:

Would you AGREE that, for the MOST PART, the EXTERIOR COLUMNS did LITTLE to resist the vertical movement of the collapse front?

Would you AGREE that, for the MOST PART, the EXTERIOR COLUMNS broke at their bolted connections.

Would you AGREE that the PRIMARY thing providing vertical support for the trusses were the TRUSS Seats?

From the NIST report, do you AGREE that, for the most part, the Truss seats below the impact point, FAILED in a DOWNWARD direction?

If you don't agree, provide evidence to show why you do not.

Arthur
Capracus
12th May 2007 - 05:14 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+May 11 2007, 10:50 PM)

Where does this 810 square meter estimate come from?  Source?  Diagrams?

From NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, Appendix C, Debris Impact Tests of Blaze-Shield DC/F Sprayed Fire-resistive Material, p. 264
QUOTE
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that the energy of the debris impacting the SFRM was distributed throughout a debris area that was about five floors high (60 ft or 18 m) and 150 ft (45 m) wide.
18 m x 45 m = 810 sqm
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that the energy of the debris impacting the SFRM was distributed throughout a debris area that was about five floors high (60 ft or 18 m) and 150 ft (45 m) wide.
18 m x 45 m = 810 sqm
The 6,000 square meters comes from NIST's own estimates of the areas where fire protection damage occurred. Here is a presentation given by NIST specifically on this topic:

Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/sess...6McAllister.pdf
If the debris is spread over an 800 sqm area, and the energy distribution is 1 mj/sqm, then the energy applied to the affected areas is 800 mj, divided by 6,000 sqm, will give 133.3 kj/sqm. It only took a few psi to pull the SFRM apart.

QUOTE
The tests involving the bar shapes with the small diameter don't help your case from a kinetic energy per unit impact area standpoint, but I agree that orientation wasn't a factor for these tests.
The floor joists webs were comprised of round bar. The floor joists and their connections were probably the most critical structural elements as far as collapse initiation and propagation were concerned.

newton
12th May 2007 - 05:31 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+May 12 2007, 05:14 PM)

The floor joists webs were comprised of round bar. The floor joists and their connections were probably the most critical structural elements as far as collapse initiation and propagation were concerned.

i disagree. i think it was the explosives that were the most critical 'structural component' causing collapse initiation and propagation.

ohmy.gif
Capracus
12th May 2007 - 05:56 PM
QUOTE (newton+May 12 2007, 05:31 PM)
i disagree.  i think it was the explosives that were the most critical 'structural component' causing collapse initiation and propagation.

ohmy.gif

If only PANYNJ would hand over the blueprints, we could then see where the explosives were located. Would we find out that the bombs get bigger the lower you go in the buildings? Maybe the plans would show that they were incorporated into the concrete core?
lozenge124
12th May 2007 - 07:27 PM
From Gordon Ross's new paper:

QUOTE
The first error which Dr. Bazant has made is his assumption that all of the available energy would be utilised exclusively in the destruction of the uppermost storey of the lower section. This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances. 
 
The energy available to the collapse is derived from the mass of the upper section. This mass is distributed throughout the upper section. Take for example the mass of the topmost floor slab of the tower. How is it possible for this mass to have its effect upon the uppermost storey of the lower section? In order for the energy associated with this mass to act at the collapse front it must be transmitted through the columns of the upper section. This energy has no other route to the collapse front other than through these columns. The very fact that all of these upper section columns are subject to load, means that they would absorb energy, in the form of elastic and plastic strain. Thus Dr. Bazant's argument that all of the energy would be concentrated into overcoming the columns on the uppermost storey of the lower section cannot be true. 
 
It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one
topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy
to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under
load and consume energy.

(...)

Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section.

This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction.

(bold added)
David B. Benson
12th May 2007 - 07:28 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+May 12 2007, 03:45 AM)
DBB, you’re not upset because Gordon makes proponents of the crush down – crush up" theory appear foolish?

No, I am not in the least upset. GR fails to properly consider that matters raised in the portion of NCSTAR1-6D that I quoted. His scholarship, in this work, is so poor I have to give him a failing grade...

lozenge124 --- In fact it is neither obvious nor intuitive. GR offers no calculations, no references, and most important, no understanding of how the trusses were suspended at exterior walls and core. Given the towers design, certain aspects of the collapse were essentially unique. An ordinary steel framed structure would not behave in the same way.
Grumpy
12th May 2007 - 07:54 PM
newton

QUOTE
i disagree. i think it was the explosives that were the most critical 'structural component' causing collapse initiation and propagation.


What explosives. Neither you nor any other tinhatter has provided even one piece of solid evidence(not hearsay or OPINION) of the existence of a single firecracker(much less the TONS needed in your paranoid fantasies. Was all of the explosives of the invisible type which leaves no physical evidence behind???

einsteen.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
i disagree. i think it was the explosives that were the most critical 'structural component' causing collapse initiation and propagation.


What explosives. Neither you nor any other tinhatter has provided even one piece of solid evidence(not hearsay or OPINION) of the existence of a single firecracker(much less the TONS needed in your paranoid fantasies. Was all of the explosives of the invisible type which leaves no physical evidence behind???

einsteen.

There is absolutely no proof that this happened


In video after video the top blocks are seen to tilt. Closeups of the collapse zones show the frame members of those top blocks being disassociated from the frame members of the remaining structure and bypassing them on the inside. Once bypassed the frame members HAVE NO WAY of applying their strength to the top blocks except for the floor connections, which failed in vertical shear as they reached their limits. The majority of the external frame members simply fell over and broke apart at their bolted connections, they can be seen layed out like banana peels, intact and unbent, all around the footprint of the towers. If they had offered any resistance they would have been bent, so they offered no resistance at all but simply followed gravity's dictates and fell over and down. Almost all of the rubble of the floors was removed from the basements, compacted into "meteors" like the representative sample NIST kept. This is because the tube of outside frame members funneled them there, not allowing anything but dust and other airborne debris to escape.

These are all facts, the towers were big tubes into which the top blocks fell, destroying the floor systems and pushing the outer frames aside as the top block fell.

To correct Gordon Ross's analogy, it is as if a car accelerated into a tunnel whose roof was held up by wooden beams. The tunnel walls were strong enough to stop the car, but the amount of resistance was limited by the much weaker wooden beams and the car continued to accelerate, knocking those beams loose as it went, until it hit the brick wall at the end of the tunnel. Since the tunnel walls and roof depended on those wooden beams to keep the from falling(as both the core and outer frame WERE dependent on the floors), they would then collapse behind the car as it traveled through the tunnel.

Grumpy cool.gif
einsteen
12th May 2007 - 07:56 PM
Arthur yes, if we look at that recent picture from some pages ago then that is a good hypothesis. I have to say that I never studied ground zero photos in detail, my first impression is a uniform distributed mass and at the footprint also some smoke (not dust).

But I would like to know what happened with that damned core, if it was standing afterwards and then died it should be visible on top of the other debris, in 911eyewitness you see a few mikado sticks falling away, but only a few and no complete core. The NIST spokesman recently said (in that interview with Shure@LCF) that the core failed first. But did he mean that the connections of the trusses with the core failed first or did he mean that it caves in and take the floors and trusses with it. In my opinion both alternatives are ridiculous.
I don't understand the relation with the often referred inward bowing of the perimeter columns, I always thought (reading the forum) that that failed first and then there was initiation. But a core that failed first is totally consistent with everything we see at the outside.
einsteen
12th May 2007 - 08:00 PM
Grumpy, couldn't GR's crush-up/crush down be explained by a small crush-up/crush-down in the beginning whichs leads to a kind of avalanche that protects the upper block from being damaged, the avalanche then does the job although a very light crush-up may happen (this MUST happen because the block wants to fall with g although the avalanche goes with a<g) during the crush-down but not a 50-50 one, this looks plausible although under the assumptions of a stepwise E1 model.
quicknthedead
12th May 2007 - 08:27 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 12 2007, 06:23 AM)

QUOTE (quicknthedead+)

HE RESTORES MY SOUL


I hope you and Gordon are very happy together, though you might want to move to New England so you can make your relationship legal.

Grumpy


Your attempt at humor is sad, Grumpy, just a part of your continual display of misunderstanding and deplorable deportment.

FYI
Jesus Christ is Lord, and it is written about Him in Psalm 23...

THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD
I SHALL NOT WANT
HE MAKES ME LIE DOWN IN GREEN PASTURES
HE LEADS ME BESIDE THE STILL WATERS
HE RESTORES MY SOUL


We all need Him to do this. If we ask Him, He will do it.
Craig T. Furlong
Capracus
12th May 2007 - 08:46 PM
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 12 2007, 08:27 PM)

FYI
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Another fantasy that you'll never prove.
newton
12th May 2007 - 09:05 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+May 12 2007, 08:46 PM)
Another fantasy that you'll never prove.

you hope.
Grumpy
12th May 2007 - 09:12 PM
einsteen

QUOTE
Grumpy, couldn't GR's crush-up/crush down be explained by a small crush-up/crush-down in the beginning whichs leads to a kind of avalanche that protects the upper block from being damaged, the avalanche then does the job although a very light crush-up may happen (this MUST happen because the block wants to fall with g although the avalanche goes with a<g) during the crush-down but not a 50-50 one, this looks plausible although under the assumptions of a stepwise E1 model.


It was a chaotic and mixed event, pure crush up/down does not necessarily represent an accurate description of all events that made up the entire event. The probability is that a "cushion" of rubble quickly developed that kept the top blocks from crumbling extensively until they reached the bottom.

By the way, describing such an event as "stepwise" is likely a misleading description. The movement of the top block was continuous and accelerating from top to bottom, all of these things were going simultainiously.

quicknthedead

If I were looking for guidance in the religious areas I certainly wouldn't look to a Liar-for-Jesus for it. Your dishonesty, mendacity and ignorance not only disqualifies you in any scientific discussion, but in any spiritual or moral one as well. Only you can do anything about your tattered reputation, and you would do well to start by admitting that there was no firetruck reflected in the back window of a BMW, nor was there a bomb in the towers that exploded before impact. I leave it between Jesus and you to repair the harm you have done taking his name in vain to support such lies.

Grumpy cool.gif
David B. Benson
12th May 2007 - 09:18 PM
QUOTE (einsteen+May 12 2007, 07:56 PM)
But I would like to know what happened with that damned core, ...

In the case of WTC 1, three walls buckled almost simultaneously. The load being carried by the upper portion of these walls was transfered onto the surviving core columns via the hat truss. This raised the load on these core columns to an average DCR of about 2. This enough enough for dramatic inelastic behavior, GR notwithstanding. The core columns buckled and the top block tilted to the south.

After 0.8 seconds, the south exterior walls began to impact the south side of the next trussed floor down, but the connections of the trusses to the exterior walls offered at most 4% of the total resistance.

For a few floors, I opine four floors sufficed, simultaneous crush-down and crush-up occurs, compacting both. This layer of crushed material protects the top block from further destruction during crush-down.
adoucette
12th May 2007 - 09:40 PM
QUOTE (einsteen+May 12 2007, 02:56 PM)
Arthur yes, if we look at that recent picture from some pages ago then that is a good hypothesis. I have to say that I never studied ground zero photos in detail, my first impression is a uniform distributed mass and at the footprint also some smoke (not dust).

But I would like to know what happened with that damned core, if it was standing afterwards and then died it should be visible on top of the other debris, in 911eyewitness you see a few mikado sticks falling away, but only a few and no complete core. The NIST spokesman recently said (in that interview with Shure@LCF) that the core failed first. But did he mean that the connections of the trusses with the core failed first or did he mean that it caves in and take the floors and trusses with it. In my opinion both alternatives are ridiculous.
I don't understand the relation with the often referred inward bowing of the perimeter columns, I always thought (reading the forum) that that failed first and then there was initiation. But a core that failed first is totally consistent with everything we see at the outside.

A NIST SPOKESMAN is posting IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY at LCF?

If so, could you provide a link?

I think the whole issue of "which failed first" is just a simplification to make the explanation easier.

IMHO, there is no FIRST.

The Trusses, the Core columns and the Exterior columns are all interconnected.

The loads are carried about equally by the Core and the exterior columns and the loads can be transferred from one to the other via the Hat Truss.

If you read the descriptions in the NIST report you can see how the loads get transferred between them after the impact and as the fire progresses.

Both the core and the exterior columns are failing but in a slightly different fashion.

The fact is the exterior columns can't buckle like that if the core is intact.

But the core is shortening (via Creep) because the loads are increasing at the same time the temp of the core columns are going up.

As the core shortens the loads get distributed to the external columns which accelerates their buckling. The more the external columns buckle the more load they transfer back to the core causing it to shorten even more.

So, in reality, its a series of load transfers, that at the end occur so quick it appears smooth.

Arthur
David B. Benson
12th May 2007 - 10:08 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 12 2007, 09:40 PM)
IMHO, there is no FIRST.

If I may offer a correction to your prose:

IMO, there was no FIRST.

(That is, your opinion is rather expert, so should not be H, IMO.)
David B. Benson
12th May 2007 - 10:52 PM
QUOTE (einsteen+May 12 2007, 07:56 PM)
... The NIST spokesman recently said (in that interview with Shure@LCF) that the core failed first. ...

After what Arthur just posted, it reminded me that yes, some of the core columns, but not all, failed first. That is, before the bowing-in of the exterior walls was visible. This is the conclusion of the fire study. Then, as Arthur mentioned, both the exterior walls and the remaining core columns eventually helped to destroy each other.

However, I stand by my analysis of the actual collapse initiation of WTC 1, that is, when sensible motion first develops.
quicknthedead
13th May 2007 - 04:11 AM
QUOTE (Capracus+May 12 2007, 01:46 PM)

QUOTE (quicknthedead @ May 12 2007+ 08:27 PM)


FYI
Jesus Christ is Lord.

Another fantasy that you'll never prove.


You're wrong about it being a fantasy (you can't prove He is a fantasy),

but you're right that I can't prove He is Lord.

That is why you must believe on Him in faith.



SO THEN FAITH COMETH BY HEARING
AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD
quicknthedead
13th May 2007 - 05:01 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 12 2007, 02:12 PM)

quicknthedead

If I were looking for guidance in the religious areas I certainly wouldn't look to a Liar-for-Jesus for it. Your dishonesty, mendacity and ignorance not only disqualifies you in any scientific discussion, but in any spiritual or moral one as well. Only you can do anything about your tattered reputation, and you would do well to start by admitting that there was no firetruck reflected in the back window of a BMW, nor was there a bomb in the towers that exploded before impact. I leave it between Jesus and you to repair the harm you have done taking his name in vain to support such lies.

Grumpy


These are simply a few of the facts about 9/11, Grumpy. There was a reflection of a firetruck in the back window of that BMW in the Hlava video, there were explosives in the sub-basements of WTC1 before the plane struck, and the antenna on WTC1 fell before the upper block began to come down.

I hope you come to Jesus before the end of your life, before it is too late.
God is a worker of miracles and does not wish any to perish. {2 Peter 3:9}



Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

I Corinthians 12:3



Capracus
13th May 2007 - 08:24 AM
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 13 2007, 04:11 AM)
You're wrong about it being a fantasy (you can't prove He is a fantasy),

but you're right that I can't prove He is Lord.

That is why you must believe on Him in faith.

SO THEN FAITH COMETH BY HEARING
AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD

How about a little faith in science and reason for a change.
tweaker
13th May 2007 - 09:42 AM
Guys, leave the religious arguments for another thread. Neither side should be allowing themselves to get suckered into that debate (the only argument even more difficult to resolve than argument that is the topic of this thread).
blue74
13th May 2007 - 11:44 AM
QUOTE (medicine_freak+May 4 2007, 10:40 AM)
Hello everyone, Just one quick question, does any one know the typical / or estimated live loads on one of the WTC towers ?

I tried to search and found :

If you search for published values of the mass of WTC 1 or 2, the number quoted is invariably close to 500,000,000 kg or 500,000 tonnes. But where does this number come from?

Greening


Is that figure right? Did you guys confirm it later on?

Sorry to bother you.

Omika paper on WTC:
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/Courses/CE180/H...C_str_paper.pdf

Quotes a paper by Tsuruta (which I incorrectly recalled as Tanaka recently) quoting the mass of towers above ground. The 500,000 tonne mass invariably seems based on total building materials including foundations and bathtub.

See:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=157122

QUOTE

Omika quotes a paper on building weight (Omika p2/10) [conversions by Blue74]:

Weight
The total building weight above ground was estimated at 3,630
MN (Tsuruta 1970) [370,400 tonnes]. The dead and live loads were 2,890 [294,900 tonnes] and 740 [75,510 tonnes] MN, respectively. The mean weight per unit floor area was
8.29 kN/m2 [846 kg/m2]
blue74
13th May 2007 - 12:10 PM
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 11 2007, 04:01 AM)
[...] Does anyone know if there have been any traces of steel dust found in the volumes and volumes of dust from the trade center?

Dust studies are well documented. See links to original studies via:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...80&#entry141354

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141590


I don't recall seeing significant amounts of iron in the dust - but then the steel was not a major component of the building mass, which was mostly concrete, gypsum, glass, etc.
kahlmyishmael
13th May 2007 - 01:17 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 12 2007, 07:28 PM)
No, I am not in the least upset. GR fails to properly consider that matters raised in the portion of NCSTAR1-6D that I quoted. His scholarship, in this work, is so poor I have to give him a failing grade...

lozenge124 --- In fact it is neither obvious nor intuitive. GR offers no calculations, no references, and most important, no understanding of how the trusses were suspended at exterior walls and core. Given the towers design, certain aspects of the collapse were essentially unique. An ordinary steel framed structure would not behave in the same way.

...and where is NEU-Fonze's hyperlinked response to Gordon Ross's critique.

David B Benson... is the Arthur on debunking911.com...the same Arthur(adoucette) who ended up getting tangled in so many lies....

..that it ended up Andrew Card was whispering something to the effect that "Mr President...that was not the first plane... it was a second plane...and it was NOT a single-engine Cessna, Mr President... it was instead a 757.... Whooo doggy!... Mr President, America is under attack by two terrible pilots"

That is who you, Shagster, NEU-FONZE and who else are PROUD TO associate with...

Can you hyperlink me to where Dr. Greening points out that the color of the "molten metal" could also have resulted FROM accidentally-created thermite?
Grumpy
13th May 2007 - 01:24 PM
quicklybraindead

QUOTE
These are simply a few of the facts about 9/11, Grumpy. There was a reflection of a firetruck in the back window of that BMW in the Hlava video, there were explosives in the sub-basements of WTC1 before the plane struck, and the antenna on WTC1 fell before the upper block began to come down.


Still lying-for-Jesus, I see.

1) There was no firetruck reflection in the back of that BMW, it was only the third brake light.

2) The video PROVES your timeline wrong, no bombs, explosives or thermite was found in the rubble

3) You need glasses very badly, the antenna only APPEARS to move first, other videos show that the tilt made it look that way only from certain perspectives.

I hope you come to Jesus before the end of your life, before it is too late. Coming to Jesus requires us NOT to bear false witness and NOT to use his name to hold up your lies. You say on one hand that you are a Christian, yet you lie for your own gain. There is a word for that, Hypocrite.

Grumpy cool.gif
Chainsaw,
13th May 2007 - 02:45 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+May 13 2007, 01:17 PM)
...and where is NEU-Fonze's hyperlinked response to Gordon Ross's critique.

David B Benson... is the Arthur on debunking911.com...the same Arthur(adoucette) who ended up getting tangled in so many lies....

..that it ended up Andrew Card was whispering something to the effect that "Mr President...that was not the first plane... it was a second plane...and it was NOT a single-engine Cessna, Mr President... it was instead a 757.... Whooo doggy!... Mr President, America is under attack by two terrible pilots"

That is who you, Shagster, NEU-FONZE and who else are PROUD TO associate with...

Can you hyperlink me to where Dr. Greening points out that the color of the "molten metal" could also have resulted FROM accidentally-created thermite?

Wouldn't you not rather see a picture of an Iron sphere created with steel and simple chemical reactions in a fire, I have created hundreds quite easily to and it does not involve thermite!
Although because the environment of the collapse is the perfect environment for thermite formation, and for the oxidation of Aluminum Chloride, it is possible that large amounts of Aluminum and Aluminum Chloride oxidized in the collapse, but it is not necessary to produce molten metal in the towers before or after Collapse initiation it only takes simple chemistry!

User posted image

Only people who know nothing about chemical reactions and fires believe that jet fuel or carbon based compound were the only fuels in these buildings.
The problem is in that environment to many fuels are present.
kahlmyishmael
13th May 2007 - 03:06 PM
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,May 13 2007, 02:45 PM)
Wouldn't you not rather see a picture of an Iron sphere created with steel and simple chemical reactions in a fire, I have created hundreds quite easily to and it does not involve thermite!
  Although because the environment of the collapse is the perfect environment for thermite formation, and for the oxidation of Aluminum Chloride, it is possible that large amounts of Aluminum and Aluminum Chloride oxidized in the collapse, but it is not necessary to produce molten metal in the towers before or after Collapse initiation it only takes simple chemistry!

User posted image

  Only people who know nothing about chemical reactions and fires believe that jet fuel or carbon based compound were the only fuels in these buildings.
  The problem is in that environment to many fuels are present.

1) Why yes I would like to see that, Chainsaw.... and what is the smallest diameter are those "iron spheres" you've created?

2)Chainsaw, what STIMULUS caused Dr. Greening to advance the "accidental thermite creation" thesis in the first place

3)Chainsaw...why did NEU-FONZE(Dr Greening) state on the Fetzer radio interview that the iron spheres in the WTC Dust were one of the great mysteries?

4)Why did he NOT JUST Say on that radio interview... "Tally Ho! .. I say old chaps... I wish I had Chainsaw with me... he could explain everthing AND THAT "one of the great mysteries" is REALLY "no big mystery at all".

5)Chainsaw... are you listed ANYWHERE as one of the contributors on the debunking911.com site?

6)Chainsaw... why are any of you at debunking911.com allowing yourselves to be associated with Arthur(adoucette)?

7)Chainsaw... would you like to take the free $500 USS Liberty challenge?

8)Chainsaw... on the "color of the molten metal" at debunking911.com...why was Dr. Greening's "accidental thermite creation thesis" not mentioned as a possib;e source of the color?

9)Chainsaw...hyperlink the readership to where Dr. Greening has responded to Gordon Ross's "fruit crumble" critique

10)Chainsaw...hyperlink the readership to Dr. Greening's reply to the critique of his work at journalof911studies.com AS IT PERTAINS to Greening's explanation of the "gravitational collapse" motif... Gordon Ross's critique USING Greening's own calculations shows 17.5 seconds theoretical MINIMUM.
Chainsaw,
13th May 2007 - 03:38 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+May 13 2007, 03:06 PM)
1) Why yes I would like to see that, Chainsaw.... and what is the smallest diameter are those "iron spheres" you've created?

2)Chainsaw, what STIMULUS caused Dr. Greening to advance the "accidental thermite creation" thesis in the first place

3)Chainsaw...why did NEU-FONZE(Dr Greening) state on the Fetzer radio interview that the iron spheres in the WTC Dust were one of the great mysteries?

4)Why did he NOT JUST Say on that radio interview... "Tally Ho! .. I say old chaps... I wish I had Chainsaw with me... he could explain everthing AND THAT "one of the great mysteries" is REALLY "no big mystery at all".

5)Chainsaw... are you listed ANYWHERE as one of the contributors on the debunking911.com site?

6)Chainsaw... why are any of you at debunking911.com allowing yourselves to be associated with Arthur(adoucette)?

7)Chainsaw... would you like to take the free $500 USS Liberty challenge?

8)Chainsaw... on the "color of the molten metal" at debunking911.com...why was Dr. Greening's "accidental thermite creation thesis" not mentioned as a possib;e source of the color?

9)Chainsaw...hyperlink the readership to where Dr. Greening has responded to Gordon Ross's "fruit crumble" critique

10)Chainsaw...hyperlink the readership to Dr. Greening's reply to the critique of his work at journalof911studies.com AS IT PERTAINS to Greening's explanation of the "gravitational collapse" motif... Gordon Ross's critique USING Greening's own calculations shows 17.5 seconds theoretical MINIMUM.

1) Less than 2.5 microns.

2) Because it is possible if the environment favors it, and Aluminum oxidation reactions were found. The problem is they should be found in that energy active environment. All that is necessary to create them is to compromise the oxide layer on Aluminum that usually protects it. Sono Chemistry, violent motion, heat, Chemistry are all ways to compromise the Oxide layer on Aluminum causing it to be come a fuel itself.

3) I had not told him about the results of the experiment I wanted to contact Dr. Jones first! He simply did not know the reactions that formed them I did, and it was not my interview!

4) Because I did not want to be there I have my own life to live, 9/11/2001 is just a point of interest for me not really much more. I also have prior engagements. DA.

5) Not that I am aware of, although Dr. Jones has been informed of my work and has looked at it.

6) He is simply a member on this site, and as such I give him respect as such.

7) The Liberty is ancient history I am only interested in 9/11/2001 and the evidence of that event that can be gained though experimentation with the actual materials in the actual conditions.

8) That is between Dr. Greening and the publisher of the site, you would have to ask them.

9-10 Are you not able to post hyperlink, if you can post them then do so and do not waste my time!

metamars
13th May 2007 - 03:39 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 12 2007, 01:35 AM)
But GR makes no reference to NCSTAR1-6, in section 9.4.4, where the B&V paper is considered (along with four other studies):

"NIST agrees with the assessment of the tower's required structural capacity to absorb the released energy of the upper building section as it begins to fall as an approximate lower bound.  The likelihood of the falling building section aligning vertically with the columns below was small, given the observed tilting, so that the required capacity would be greater if interaction with the floors was considered, as pointed out in the study." (emphasis added)

Since GR is still under the illusion that the column members continued to be concentrically axial, the work is not worth the (low) cost of the storage it occupies.  dry.gif

NCSTAR1-6, section 9.4.4, references Bazant Zhou, not Bazant Verdure.

The most natural corrections to the Bazant Zhou paper would take into account dynamic effects, along the lines of Caladine and English (I consider CE more fundamental than Gordon Ross' paper, but look forward to seeing how closely Gordon nailed it when proper investigations and comparisons are done.) Thus, NIST's statement is incorrect, or, at best, remains to be shown.

Gordon's recent paper lays out proper criticism of the Bazant Zhou paper. To criticise it for making the same assumptions that Bazant Zhou does, but not criticise Bazant Zhou for them, is rather hypocritical and obscurantist.

I note that not only all of the popes here, but also in a thread at JREF that I posted in failed to concede this obvious point.

I will, in the near future, quote from the Barrie Zwicker book "the Towers of Deception", wherein he lays out various tactics of propagandists. Anybody with half a brain will immediately understand which particular tactics are in evidence in the afore-mentioned obscurantism.
Grumpy
13th May 2007 - 04:18 PM
metamars

QUOTE
The most natural corrections to the Bazant Zhou paper would take into account dynamic effects, along the lines of Caladine and English (I consider CE more fundamental than Gordon Ross' paper, but look forward to seeing how closely Gordon nailed it when proper investigations and comparisons are done.) Thus, NIST's statement is incorrect, or, at best, remains to be shown.

Gordon's recent paper lays out proper criticism of the Bazant Zhou paper. To criticise it for making the same assumptions that Bazant Zhou does, but not criticise Bazant Zhou for them, is rather hypocritical and obscurantist.


Actually all Gordon's recent papaers illustrate is that he has no real understanding of the processes that occured during the collapses. In summing up his understanding he used this analogy in his latest paper "NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE"...

" To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down – crush up" theory."

The towers were not a solid structure like a truck, but were a tube like a tunnel. Therefore an accurate analogy would be...

"To correct Gordon Ross's analogy, it is as if a car accelerated into a tunnel whose roof was held up by wooden beams. The tunnel walls were strong enough to stop the car, but the amount of resistance was limited by the much weaker wooden beams and the car continued to accelerate, knocking those beams loose as it went, until it hit the brick wall at the end of the tunnel. Since the tunnel walls and roof depended on those wooden beams to keep the from falling(as both the core and outer frame WERE dependent on the floors), they would then collapse behind the car as it traveled through the tunnel."

This analogy fits the facts much better than anything Gordon Ross has written. Never forget that Gordon was the Coauthor of the paper with Furlong claiming explosions in the buildings PRIOR to aircraft impacts. This paper is now thouroughly falsified, but I have yet to see either Gordon or Craig retract it or appologize for spreading this disinformation. Until they do so their scientific reputation is nil. So you will have to excuse us if we don't wait with baited breath on their latest pronouncements.

Grumpy cool.gif
quicknthedead
13th May 2007 - 04:35 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+May 13 2007, 01:24 AM)
How about a little faith in science and reason for a change.

I agree. Do you?



I WALK IN THE WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
IN THE MIDST OF THE PATHS OF JUSTICE
TO ENDOW THOSE WHO LOVE ME WITH WEALTH
THAT I MAY FILL THEIR TREASURIES

{Wisdom speaking in Proverbs 8:20-22}
quicknthedead
13th May 2007 - 05:59 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 13 2007, 06:24 AM)
quicklybraindead



Still lying-for-Jesus, I see.

1) There was no firetruck reflection in the back of that BMW, it was only the third brake light.

2) The video PROVES your timeline wrong, no bombs, explosives or thermite was found in the rubble

3) You need glasses very badly, the antenna only APPEARS to move first, other videos show that the tilt made it look that way only from certain perspectives.

I hope you come to Jesus before the end of your life, before it is too late. Coming to Jesus requires us NOT to bear false witness and NOT to use his name to hold up your lies. You say on one hand that you are a Christian, yet you lie for your own gain. There is a word for that, Hypocrite.

Grumpy cool.gif


FYI and to clarify:
When one responds with error, I will refute; e.g., Grumpy does this nearly 100% of the time, so responses occur. However, refutation is not the important reason why I post.

All my posts have my "call sign" at the end of them, which is sharing Scripture from God's word, the Bible (this used to be taught in elementary education in this country). I do this in life (and also everywhere I go on the internet regarding 9/11). God gave me this service, and I gladly do it for Him.

Only God can quicken the dead by giving eternal life.
And eternal life comes from faith in His Son, Jesus.
And "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

THEREFORE:
If one answers with falsehood, I will refute happily and then post Scripture.
If the reader does not like the sight of God's word, that is sad but is not my problem.

(Message to tweaker: There is nothing wrong with sharing God's word, but all the "religious" arguments come from people like Grumpy who are simply responding to the sight of God's word. Any real and direct questions I may be asked, I will answer. I agree with you 100% that this thread be centered on the science and facts surrounding the WTC on 9/11. Thanks.)



So, Grumpy, once again you are sadly mistaken on all accounts.


SO SHALL MY WORD BE THAT GOES FORTH FROM MY MOUTH
IT SHALL NOT RETURN TO ME VOID
BUT IT SHALL ACCOMPLISH WHAT I PLEASE
AND IT SHALL PROSPER IN THE THING FOR WHICH I SENT IT




Grumpy
13th May 2007 - 06:34 PM
quicklybraindead

QUOTE
FYI and to clarify:
When one responds with error, I will refute; e.g., Grumpy does this nearly 100% of the time, so responses occur. However, refutation is not the important reason why I post.

All my posts have my "call sign" at the end of them, which is sharing Scripture from God's word, the Bible (this used to be taught in elementary education in this country). I do this in life (and also everywhere I go on the internet regarding 9/11). God gave me this service, and I gladly do it for Him.

Only God can quicken the dead by giving eternal life.
And eternal life comes from faith in His Son, Jesus.
And "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

THEREFORE:
If one answers with falsehood, I will refute happily and then post Scripture.
If the reader does not like the sight of God's word, that is sad but is not my problem.

(Message to tweaker: There is nothing wrong with sharing God's word, but all the "religious" arguments come from people like Grumpy who are simply responding to the sight of God's word. Any real and direct questions I may be asked, I will answer. I agree with you 100% that this thread be centered on the science and facts surrounding the WTC on 9/11. Thanks.)


That's what I call Lying-for-Jesus. You are not the only one who claims to be Christian but does not follow the Commandments, but you keep making false claims(firetrucks in windows, bombs in basements, etc) and then posting scripture, wrapping yourself falsely in the Bible as if it will make your lies into truth. I really don't care what your religious views are, they are irrelivant to the topic of this forum and should not be posted. But if I see hypocracy(and that's what I see in your posts) then I will point it out.

You saying there is a reflection of a fire truck in the video that falsifies your theory of bombs in the basement IS A LIE.

You continuing to claim bombs in the basement after the video and lack of physical evidence IS A LIE.

Your Holier-than-Thou posting of scripture in the same post as your lies is HYPOCRACY, FALSE WITNESS and TAKING THE LORD'S NAME IN VAIN. It is offensive, craven, dishonest and dispicable.

Grumpy cool.gif
David B. Benson
13th May 2007 - 06:44 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+May 13 2007, 01:17 PM)
David B Benson... is the Arthur on debunking911.com...the same Arthur(adoucette) ...

Just so it is clear to all. I am not Arthur Doucette.


metamars --- Thank you for the correction. I did, for course, mean write write B & Z.
quicknthedead
13th May 2007 - 06:45 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 13 2007, 09:18 AM)


QUOTE (metamars+)

The most natural corrections to the Bazant Zhou paper would take into account dynamic effects, along the lines of Caladine and English (I consider CE more fundamental than Gordon Ross' paper, but look forward to seeing how closely Gordon nailed it when proper investigations and comparisons are done.) Thus, NIST's statement is incorrect, or, at best, remains to be shown.

Gordon's recent paper lays out proper criticism of the Bazant Zhou paper. To criticise it for making the same assumptions that Bazant Zhou does, but not criticise Bazant Zhou for them, is rather hypocritical and obscurantist.


metamars

Actually all Gordon's recent papaers illustrate is that he has no real understanding of the processes that occured during the collapses. In summing up his understanding he used this analogy in his latest paper "NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE"...

" To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down – crush up" theory."

The towers were not a solid structure like a truck, but were a tube like a tunnel. Therefore an accurate analogy would be...

"To correct Gordon Ross's analogy, it is as if a car accelerated into a tunnel whose roof was held up by wooden beams. The tunnel walls were strong enough to stop the car, but the amount of resistance was limited by the much weaker wooden beams and the car continued to accelerate, knocking those beams loose as it went, until it hit the brick wall at the end of the tunnel. Since the tunnel walls and roof depended on those wooden beams to keep the from falling(as both the core and outer frame WERE dependent on the floors), they would then collapse behind the car as it traveled through the tunnel."

This analogy fits the facts much better than anything Gordon Ross has written. Never forget that Gordon was the Coauthor of the paper with Furlong claiming explosions in the buildings PRIOR to aircraft impacts. This paper is now thouroughly falsified, but I have yet to see either Gordon or Craig retract it or appologize for spreading this disinformation. Until they do so their scientific reputation is nil. So you will have to excuse us if we don't wait with baited breath on their latest pronouncements.

Grumpy cool.gif


metamars, thanks for correction (NCSTAR1-6, section 9.4.4, references Bazant Zhou, not Bazant Verdure) and for the insight.

Grumpy, it was enough that your "better" analogy was read the first time, but repeating it is tiresome.

Also, the paper has not been falsified by anyone. On the contrary, the time differential between NIST's 8:46:30 and the Commission's 8:46:40 has never been explained properly by anyone except by this paper; i.e., explosion(s) occurred before the plane struck.

And your end logic is false. Even if the paper were in error, it would have nothing to do with Gordon's new paper. Look up the fallacy Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.



BUT OUR STRUGGLE IS NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD
BUT AGAINST THE RULERS
AGAINST THE POWERS
AGAINST THE WORLD FORCES OF THIS DARKNESS
AGAINST THE SPIRITUAL FORCES OF WICKEDNESS IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES
newton
13th May 2007 - 06:51 PM
gumby:

there were explosions in the basement, prior to the building collapse, and at around the same time as the plane impacts, and a B4 level collapse, which was responded to by emergency 911(the phone number) responders. it is in official records.

you have been shown this before.
like all evidence you don't like, you simply claim it doesn't exist.
here's a clue. that works for the boogeyman, but not reailty which has been sampled by video and audio recordings, some of which have been subsequently transcribed into text form.

you heckle the religious, yet have your own faith-based 'science', and you prove it repeatedly.

the towers were like a tunnel, okay, but a tunnel with a train(the core) in it, and another train with a tunnel around it crashing into it. gordon's analogy is fine, and illustrates what would have to happen with the core in the ridiculous crush up/crush down fantasy math.
quicknthedead
13th May 2007 - 06:52 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 13 2007, 11:34 AM)
quicklybraindead



That's what I call Lying-for-Jesus. You are not the only one who claims to be Christian but does not follow the Commandments, but you keep making false claims(firetrucks in windows, bombs in basements, etc) and then posting scripture, wrapping yourself falsely in the Bible as if it will make your lies into truth. I really don't care what your religious views are, they are irrelivant to the topic of this forum and should not be posted. But if I see hypocracy(and that's what I see in your posts) then I will point it out.

You saying there is a reflection of a fire truck in the video that falsifies your theory of bombs in the basement IS A LIE.

You continuing to claim bombs in the basement after the video and lack of physical evidence IS A LIE.

Your Holier-than-Thou posting of scripture in the same post as your lies is HYPOCRACY, FALSE WITNESS and TAKING THE LORD'S NAME IN VAIN. It is offensive, craven, dishonest and dispicable.

Grumpy cool.gif

You are not only wrong on all accounts, but we need an air conditioner around here because of all the hot air in your posts. laugh.gif



THE JOY OF THE LORD IS MY STRENGTH
Grumpy
13th May 2007 - 07:19 PM
quicklybraindead

Go ahead, attack the messenger since your "paper" and "firetruck" are simply indefensible, just quit trying to get Jesus to validate your lies

newton

Where is the evidence for explosives??? Explosions in the basement are easily seen to be fuel/air explosions caused by jet fuel, no evidence for other explosives put the lie to your and Craig's claims.

Besides, I'm not ridiculing religious beliefs, just those who abuse and misuse them for their own gain. Lying-for-Jesus is the height of hypocracy and IS NOT a Christian thing to do.

QUOTE
the towers were like a tunnel, okay, but a tunnel with a train(the core) in it, and another train with a tunnel around it crashing into it. gordon's analogy is fine, and illustrates what would have to happen with the core in the ridiculous crush up/crush down fantasy math.


All analogies have a point where they no longer apply. Gordon's is a nonstarter from the beginning(the towers were tunnels, not solid). Mine deals only with the floors, not the core. The core was bypassed by the floors and fell due to their inability to stand the strain once the floors were not bracing them.

Grumpy cool.gif
David B. Benson
13th May 2007 - 07:28 PM
QUOTE (metamars+May 13 2007, 03:39 PM)
Gordon's recent paper lays out proper criticism of the Bazant Zhou paper. To criticise[sic] it for making the same assumptions that Bazant Zhou does, but not criticise[sic] Bazant Zhou for them, is rather hypocritical and obscurantist.

Nope. My major complaint is that GR failed to address the portion of NCSTAR1-6D which I quoted.

In addition, as I said, GR continues to assume that the column members remained concentrically coaxial, in face of the observations of tilting.
newton
13th May 2007 - 07:31 PM
there should be at least some of the core standing, with your pancake theory. the floors cannot be simultaneously broken off and falling down, while pulling apart the core.
once again, the core is far more 'solid' than a car or a truck.

fuel air explosions only 'easily' explain sub-level COLLAPSE to people who think peter pan flies in their window at night.
David B. Benson
13th May 2007 - 07:43 PM
QUOTE (newton+May 13 2007, 07:31 PM)
there should be at least some of the core standing, ...

There was.

WTC 1: A temporary 'spire' of only a few columns, about 65 +/- 5 stories high observed still standing 19 seconds after collapse initiation.

WTC 2: A substantial number of column lines, maybe four, about 55 +/- 5 stories high observed well after the dust cloud had moved off the site.
Grumpy
13th May 2007 - 09:00 PM
newton

QUOTE
there should be at least some of the core standing, with your pancake theory. the floors cannot be simultaneously broken off and falling down, while pulling apart the core.
once again, the core is far more 'solid' than a car or a truck.


The floors were AROUND the core. When they were stripped they left the core(still under the stress of holding up the top block) until the columns reached a critical thinness/length ratio, whereupon they flexed and broke their welded connections. And the core was not "solid" it was a series of single columns that, once the floors were gone, had NO bracing between them, THERE WAS NO CONCRETE CORE, just columns with lots of space in between.

And F/A explosions in the elevator shafts explain all the phenomina seen in those buildings(burns, blown off doors, broken glass and fumes). That you don't accept that fact is your problem.

Grumpy cool.gif
metamars
13th May 2007 - 09:36 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 13 2007, 04:18 PM)
metamars



Actually all Gordon's recent papaers illustrate is that he has no real understanding of the processes that occured during the collapses. In summing up his understanding he used this analogy in his latest paper "NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE"...

" To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down – crush up" theory."

The towers were not a solid structure like a truck, but were a tube like a tunnel. Therefore an accurate analogy would be...

"To correct Gordon Ross's analogy, it is as if a car accelerated into a tunnel whose roof was held up by wooden beams. The tunnel walls were strong enough to stop the car, but the amount of resistance was limited by the much weaker wooden beams and the car continued to accelerate, knocking those beams loose as it went, until it hit the brick wall at the end of the tunnel. Since the tunnel walls and roof depended on those wooden beams to keep the from falling(as both the core and outer frame WERE dependent on the floors), they would then collapse behind the car as it traveled through the tunnel."

This analogy fits the facts much better than anything Gordon Ross has written. Never forget that Gordon was the Coauthor of the paper with Furlong claiming explosions in the buildings PRIOR to aircraft impacts. This paper is now thouroughly falsified, but I have yet to see either Gordon or Craig retract it or appologize for spreading this disinformation. Until they do so their scientific reputation is nil. So you will have to excuse us if we don't wait with baited breath on their latest pronouncements.

Grumpy cool.gif

You remind of a student I tutored when I was in graduate school, who seemed unable to solve the simplest of problems. It finally occurred to me that his brain did not seem to have a grasp of relative distance. So, I asked him, "If point A is far from point B, but point C is near point B, what can we say about the relationship between points A and C?"

He failed that test.

Before you make yet another of your not-so-omniscient remarks about the quality of this school, be aware that a fellow graduate student could easily read and comprehend 200 or 300 pages of linear algebra at a clip. Linear algebra may be the simplest abstract (proofs and theorems) course out there, but still, this girl was brilliant. Besides school and work for the department, she also taught aerobics, had a full time boy friend, socialized a great deal, and read 2 or 3 novels per week.

Gordon's analogy illustrates the folly of assuming a floor-by-floor sequential collapse, with dynamic (including momentum) effects constrained to just one floor height at a time.

If you haven't grasped this point by now, you never will.

metamars
13th May 2007 - 09:52 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 13 2007, 07:28 PM)
Nope. My major complaint is that GR failed to address the portion of NCSTAR1-6D which I quoted.

In addition, as I said, GR continues to assume that the column members remained concentrically coaxial, in face of the observations of tilting.

NIST points to the BZ paper as the one representing a "lower bound" of required structural capacity to resist collapse, and Gordon shows that the "lower bound" is actually higher than BZ indicate, and further that the conclusion is reversed.

Since NIST cannot legitimately make it's case via reference to a paper
which assumes an axial collapse, they should admit their error and call for serious investigations which do not make such an assumption.

I'm quite sure that Gordon knows about the tilts, as surely as Bazant and Zhou, and yes, even NIST, knew about the tilts.



newton
13th May 2007 - 09:54 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 13 2007, 07:43 PM)
There was.

WTC 1: A temporary 'spire' of only a few columns, about 65 +/- 5 stories high observed still standing 19 seconds after collapse initiation.

WTC 2: A substantial number of column lines, maybe four, about 55 +/- 5 stories high observed well after the dust cloud had moved off the site.

sorry. portions of the perimeter were the only thing left standing once the collapse was complete.

there was no reason for the temporary remainder of the core(s) to fall.
newton
13th May 2007 - 10:01 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 13 2007, 09:00 PM)
newton

And the core was not "solid" it was a series of single columns that, once the floors were gone, had NO bracing between them, THERE WAS NO CONCRETE CORE, just columns with lots of space in between.

And F/A explosions in the elevator shafts explain all the phenomina seen in those buildings(burns, blown off doors, broken glass and fumes). That you don't accept that fact is your problem.

Grumpy cool.gif

i am not alone in 'my problem'.
anyway...

it's hard to tell when you guys are trying to decieve, when you're outright lying, and when you're just thick.

but the core was cross braced with huge steel beams, and had concrete(not lightweight, either) floors. get it right. it was far more robust than any other part of the building.
David B. Benson
13th May 2007 - 10:23 PM
QUOTE (newton+May 13 2007, 09:54 PM)
sorry.  portions of the perimeter were the only thing left standing once the collapse was complete.

there was no reason for the temporary remainder of the core(s) to fall.

(1) Look again. You are simply wrong about this. After the tall portions fell down, there were still several stories, a dozen or more, of the core which remained standing until intentionally demolished. AFAIK, the only portions of the exterior walls to remain 'standing', if we may call it that, were the massive trees from floor 7 down.

(2) Read about Euler buckling of slender columns.

Edited to add: Yes, I forgot to say that the section of the core of WTC 2 fell down after a few more seconds. I've never seen a visual of this occurance.
lozenge124
13th May 2007 - 10:29 PM
There's a new paper in the letters section of the journal of 911 studies that has another crack at determining lower bounds for WTC time of collapse based on the "floating floor" model (=no column resistance):
http://journalof911studies.com/letters.html
Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1, Kenneth Kuttler, Professor of Mathematics


On a side note, I contacted Mr. Astaneh-Asl ( http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm ) a little while ago to ask him about the core column cross-bracing as he apparently is one of the few people to have access to the full WTC architectural drawings including core column schedule. Here is part of his email answer:
QUOTE
The answer to your question regarding the structure of WTC core area is
that the core of WTC in regular floors ( from 10th to 110th) did not
have any cross bracing. The core was made of steel columns, mostly box
shaped made of 4 steel plates welded to each other to make the
rectangular box. In upper floors , above 70th floor or so, some columns
were  wide flange (I-shaped) sections instead of box shapes. The floor
beams in the core were generally rolled steel wide flange shapes. The
beams were connected to the core columns by shear connections
(sometimes called pin connections or simple connections as well). As a result, the
core columns were responsible to carry only gravity loads of the floors
while the outside steel  bearing walls (some incorrectly have called
this a tube) were responsible for gravity load as well as lateral load
primarily due to wind.

This would seem to confirm that the core was - aside from the bracing provided by the floors themselves - only braced at the mechanical floors (non "regular floors").
adoucette
13th May 2007 - 10:36 PM
QUOTE (metamars+May 13 2007, 04:52 PM)
Gordon shows that the "lower bound" is actually higher than BZ indicate, and further that the conclusion is reversed.


And apparently does so based on HIS logical reasoning abilities alone since his paper contains not the first equation.

laugh.gif

Let us know when this tour de force gets published in something BESIDES that bogus troofer journal

Arthur

David B. Benson
13th May 2007 - 10:38 PM
QUOTE (newton+May 13 2007, 10:01 PM)
but the core was cross braced with huge steel beams, ...

Only on the mechanical floors and from floor 7 (or so) down, and maybe, I'm not sure, above floor 105.

The floor beams in the core were largely connected with shear connections. These have no lateral force transfer capability to speak of. Some of the floor beams were connected with moment-transfer connections, which, as the name implies, can transfer significant lateral forces. NIST used the later in FEA models but not the former.
David B. Benson
13th May 2007 - 10:46 PM
QUOTE (metamars+May 13 2007, 09:52 PM)
I'm quite sure that Gordon knows about the tilts, as surely as Bazant and Zhou, ...

B & Z probably did not know about the tilts in both towers at the time they wrote their joint paper, only a few days after the events.

If GR knows about the tilts, his papers show no evidence of it. Therefore I would question whether he is fully following the Professional Code of Ethics to which he agreed in order to be able to legitimately put ME after his name. While I have many differences of opinion and substance with GR, I do believe he is a honorable man. Therefore I doubt he has bothered to consider the role of the tilts, especially the commentary regarding such in NIST which I quoted...
adoucette
13th May 2007 - 10:53 PM
QUOTE (metamars+May 13 2007, 04:36 PM)
You remind of a student I tutored when I was in graduate school, who seemed unable to solve the simplest of problems. It finally occurred to me that his brain did not seem to have a grasp of relative distance. So, I asked him, "If point A is far from point B, but point C is near point B, what can we say about the relationship between points A and C?"

He failed that test.

Before you make yet another of your not-so-omniscient remarks about the quality of this school, be aware that a fellow graduate student could easily read and comprehend 200 or 300 pages of linear algebra at a clip. Linear algebra may be the simplest abstract (proofs and theorems) course out there, but still, this girl was brilliant. Besides school and work for the department, she also taught aerobics, had a full time boy friend, socialized a great deal, and read 2 or 3 novels per week.


And you apparently failed in Biology.

laugh.gif

PS, your "Test question" appears pointless since the terms 'near' and 'far' are subjective.

Arthur
Grumpy
13th May 2007 - 11:12 PM
metamars

QUOTE
Gordon's analogy illustrates the folly of assuming a floor-by-floor sequential collapse, with dynamic (including momentum) effects constrained to just one floor height at a time.

If you haven't grasped this point by now, you never will.


You (and Gordon, I assume) are the ones showing lack of understanding, it would seem. Whatever gave you the idea that momentum effects were constrained in any way??? The FACT that the falling mass encountered only one floor's resistence at a time in no way means that it caused a stepwise progression, on the contrary, the motion of the top was continuous since the resistence offered by the floors was but a small fraction of the energy applied.

As I said, Gordon Ross's ignorance and dishonesty taints anything he writes or says. His analogy shows an abysmal lack of understanding of the processes involved in the tower's collapse. My analogy illustrates well the fact that the core and outer frame were completely bypassed by the pancaking floors and that their strength thus had no role in resisting that pancaking, much less as a monolithic block. Once the bracing of the floors was removed the core and outer frame simply fell over or bent to the point where their connections failed. They offered little or no resistence.

Grumpy cool.gif
David B. Benson
13th May 2007 - 11:16 PM
Here is a stab at dynamic effects of the portion of the building below the break: For simplicity, we consider only a single steel column, l = 365 meters tall and with a cross-section area of A = 0.01 meters^2.
The density of A36 steel is taken as 7850 kg/m^3, so the column mass is 28652.5 kg.

We treat it as a spring with evenly distributed mass, so the effective mass, for the spring equation, is only 1/3 of the total, m = 9551 kg. The spring constant, k, is given by

k = E(A/l)

where E = 200x10^9 N/m^2 for steel. So k = 5.48x10^6 N/m.

The period of a sinusoidally varying mass-spring system is

T = 2pi sqrt(m/k)

and plugging in the above numbers, T = 0.262 seconds.

The heavy lifting is from chapter 12 of the book by Simitses & Hodges cited in an earlier post: Therein they demonstrate that under a sudden load of infinite duration (a so-called step function), the maximum deflection occurs at T/2 = 0.131 seconds. Thereafter the deflection decreases until the end of the period.

T/2 = 0.131 seconds is in good, but not perfect, accord with my estimate of the time it would take for a pressure pulse to traverse to the bottom of the column and be reflected back to the top: 0.141 seconds. We conclude that after T/2 = 0.131 (or so) seconds, the weakest column member, the one in fire and impact affected zone, not only has a load about twice what it was designed to handle on the top, but it has the lower portion of the column expanding upwards. It buckles!

(A good estimate of the drop of the top of the building at 0.2 seconds is 0.14 meters.)

As always, constructive, thoughtful remarks are welcomed.
adoucette
14th May 2007 - 02:18 AM
QUOTE (lozenge124+May 13 2007, 05:29 PM)
There's a new paper in the letters section of the journal of 911 studies that has another crack at determining lower bounds for WTC time of collapse based on the "floating floor" model (=no column resistance):
http://journalof911studies.com/letters.html
Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1, Kenneth Kuttler, Professor of Mathematics

Let us know when he gets this published in a REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.

What's hilarious about this effort is that according to its logic, the ONLY way for the towers to have fallen in the fime frame they did was for there to have been explosives all the way down the tower.

Which of course is NOT POSSIBLE.

What is also funny is that we have all seen a number of CDs of large buildings and clearly they accelerate much like the towers did, and in normal CDs, they typically cut the main supports at the bottom of the building but they DON'T cut the supports on each of the floors. They let gravity do the smashing, yet don't produce the long fall times this paper suggests.

Arthur

Pierre-Normand
14th May 2007 - 07:10 AM
QUOTE (lozenge124+May 13 2007, 10:29 PM)
There's a new paper in the letters section of the journal of 911 studies that has another crack at determining lower bounds for WTC time of collapse based on the "floating floor" model (=no column resistance):
http://journalof911studies.com/letters.html
Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1, Kenneth Kuttler, Professor of Mathematics

I've had a quick look at this paper. There are two very significant mistakes that stroke me.

The author fist makes a simple momentum transfer analysis that neglects resistance from the columns ("the floating floor model"). This yields collapse time of 12.18 seconds, assuming a collapse that is initiated on the 94th floor, with two distinct crush down and crush up phases, and assuming 11.69 feet as the spacing between the compacted floors (thus yielding a net fall distance). So far, so good.

The author then proposes that in a more realistic scenario all the concrete would be crushed and that all the crushed material would contribute nothing to momentum transfer because it would either rest suspended in air or get expelled outside of the footprint of the structure. This is of course ludicrous but the author believes this to be very conservative since it amounts to assuming, according to him, that none of the steel gets crushed. This yields (granting his assumptions about mass distribution) an "r" factor of 0.975. This is defined as the fraction of the mass of the upper block (plus already crushed floors) that gets removed at each collision. The resulting collapse time now gets increased to 15.95 seconds, which he compares to the "official NIST figure" of 11 seconds.

He then propose that "In viewing the videos of the falling building, it does not seem remarkable that at each collision about 1/10 of the total mass was lost." So, he assumes that much of the steel was ejected as well and did not further contribute to momentum transfer. This might be true of much of the perimeter trees, but then, the lower perimeter trees did not contribute either to slowing down the collapse so we might as well ignore the perimeter altogether in momentum transfer calculation that are an idealisation of a floor pankaking process. The author now arrives at figure of 21.33 seconds. This is assuming that about 90% mass was "lost" during the collapse, which the author deems realistic from mere observation of the videos.

The second significant error does not concern assumption but rather basic physics. The author believes that he has so far conservatively ignored the energy required to crush the concrete into dust. He does not realise that inelastic collisions result in kinetic energy being lost and thus made available to do work. In a "floating floor model", the speed of the falling mass after each collision ought to be a deduction from the law of conservation of momentum alone. The amount of kinetic energy available to crush material does not thus depend on further assumtions. However the author does not realizes this he and announces:

"I will use a sloppier argument here in obtaining estimates for the sake of simplicity. I will neglect conservation of momentum in the fall of the bottom floors and only consider energy." (p.5)

Of course, he has to do this. In order to remove *more* kinetic energy from the falling pile than inelastic collisions allow, and thus slow it down further, he has to actually *violate* the law of conservation of momentum. But he does not realize that his argument requires him to violate a law of nature. He believes he is just ignoring it "for the sake of simplicity". He then gets a collapse time of 31.29 seconds that is not now just unrealistic but also meaningless.

I haven't gone further than p.7 yet.




PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.